Add a Comment5726 comments
Average Guess (475 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
James B said on 27/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
I tell you a funny story from Ricky's own mouth:
"Apparently, I don’t know if this is true but I hope it is, I’ve heard it from a few reports, when we went up to get our awards apparently Clint Eastwood turned to someone that he was with and went, Who the **** are they?"
LOL
Ricky might have been joking though?
Arch Stanton says on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
I tell you a funny story from Ricky's own mouth:
"Apparently, I don’t know if this is true but I hope it is, I’ve heard it from a few reports, when we went up to get our awards apparently Clint Eastwood turned to someone that he was with and went, Who the **** are they?"
LOL
Ricky might have been joking though?
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/14
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
LOL, it's just you. That's probably the biggest compliment you could ever give Ricky Gervais!! Did he pay you to write that!! Looks absolutely nothing like him and couldn't be built more differently!! Beckham's hair on the other hand you could argue looks like Gervais at times and of course course at times Beckham can resemble Clint from that period.
James B said on 26/Mar/14
Off topic but is it just me or does clint Eastwood bear a resemblance to ricky Gervais in the good the bad and the ugly?
Click Here
Off topic but is it just me or does clint Eastwood bear a resemblance to ricky Gervais in the good the bad and the ugly?
Click Here
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
Clint looks more like 6ft3 next to Arnold about 2 inches taller.I would put clints peak at a bit lower than 6ft4' maybe 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.
Clint looks more like 6ft3 next to Arnold about 2 inches taller.I would put clints peak at a bit lower than 6ft4' maybe 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
I think looking at eastwood and Fleming again they look the same hight.
I think looking at eastwood and Fleming again they look the same hight.
jervis said on 26/Mar/14
Very close in hight with Fleming.
Very close in hight with Fleming.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Mar/14
He looked 6'3 in the 80s yeah.
He looked 6'3 in the 80s yeah.
James B said on 25/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
Well would you agree clint looked shorter in heartbreak ridge and the dead pool compared to how tall he looked in the enforcer for instance? I think between 1976-1978 clint lost a bit of height.
Arch Stanton says on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
Well would you agree clint looked shorter in heartbreak ridge and the dead pool compared to how tall he looked in the enforcer for instance? I think between 1976-1978 clint lost a bit of height.
jervis said on 24/Mar/14
Looked the same hight as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz to me.Also looked taller by about 1 inch than 6ft2 big Bill Smith and about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in thr dead pool.He looked in the 6ft3 range to me in the eghties,in the nineties more 6ft2.5.Down to 6ft2 in 2000 to 2005.From age 75 to 80 droped below 6Ft2,now at almost 84 he is about 6ft1 or 6ft.5 depending on posture.
Looked the same hight as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz to me.Also looked taller by about 1 inch than 6ft2 big Bill Smith and about 1 inch shorter than Neeson in thr dead pool.He looked in the 6ft3 range to me in the eghties,in the nineties more 6ft2.5.Down to 6ft2 in 2000 to 2005.From age 75 to 80 droped below 6Ft2,now at almost 84 he is about 6ft1 or 6ft.5 depending on posture.
Lillo thomas said on 24/Mar/14
Nick of course at 85 years of age . Clint eastwood is expected to lose height but between 1-2 inches. If clint eastwood was really 6'4 peak than means he is about 4 inches shorter . This fact is very hard to believe. My father is 82 years old and about 1.5 inch shorter from his peak.
Nick of course at 85 years of age . Clint eastwood is expected to lose height but between 1-2 inches. If clint eastwood was really 6'4 peak than means he is about 4 inches shorter . This fact is very hard to believe. My father is 82 years old and about 1.5 inch shorter from his peak.
Lillo thomas said on 24/Mar/14
James B Clint eastwood never give me a legit 6'4 impression watching his films as a kid. I always thought he was between 6'2 and 6'3.
James B Clint eastwood never give me a legit 6'4 impression watching his films as a kid. I always thought he was between 6'2 and 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
If Clint was 6'2" in Escape from Alcatraz Paul Benjamin was struggling with a flat 6 ft. And guys who were as tall as Clint don't need to add false inches to their own height James.
James B said on 24/Mar/14
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
Did me remarking that he looked 6'2 in escape from Alcatraz prompt you to have another look at his peak height? In all of films from the 80s and up to 2002 he looked like a strong 6'2 guy but not 6'4 or even 6'3.
In blood work which was only made in 2002 clint looked 188cm since then though he has been looking shorter than that
Editor Rob
James B says on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
[Editor Rob: I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....]
Did me remarking that he looked 6'2 in escape from Alcatraz prompt you to have another look at his peak height? In all of films from the 80s and up to 2002 he looked like a strong 6'2 guy but not 6'4 or even 6'3.
In blood work which was only made in 2002 clint looked 188cm since then though he has been looking shorter than that
Editor Rob no, I have been meaning to rewatch his films for a while.
nick said on 24/Mar/14
Of course hes lost inches hes nearly 85 years old for crying out loud.
Of course hes lost inches hes nearly 85 years old for crying out loud.
the shredder said on 21/Mar/14
I find it to believe Danny Glover lost 2 inches. He is 6'1 but looked 6'3 peak. I actually am strating to think glover was 6'2.5 max.
I find it to believe Danny Glover lost 2 inches. He is 6'1 but looked 6'3 peak. I actually am strating to think glover was 6'2.5 max.
James B said on 21/Mar/14
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
Editor Rob
Do u agree lillo Thomas that clint looked 188cm in escape from Alcatraz?
Editor Rob I'm going to do a clint rewatch at some point. I've been through Seagal/Sly/Ford in last few months....
Sam said on 21/Mar/14
Not all older men have a distinct hump along their back (I think Rob calls it a dowager's hump), but Eastwood does. Think of other tall guys like Sidney Poitier and Christopher Lee who maintained a relatively straight spine until they were in their 80s. Even with his obviously greater health problems, John Wayne maintained more height it seems than Clint has.
Not all older men have a distinct hump along their back (I think Rob calls it a dowager's hump), but Eastwood does. Think of other tall guys like Sidney Poitier and Christopher Lee who maintained a relatively straight spine until they were in their 80s. Even with his obviously greater health problems, John Wayne maintained more height it seems than Clint has.
Lillo thomas said on 20/Mar/14
I agree Clint losing nearly 4 inches from his peak is unbelievable. Most guys as his age are around 2 inches shorter max.
I agree Clint losing nearly 4 inches from his peak is unbelievable. Most guys as his age are around 2 inches shorter max.
littlesue said on 20/Mar/14
My Mom last 2 inches and she 77, my Nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 and lost between 6 to 8 inches
My Mom last 2 inches and she 77, my Nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 and lost between 6 to 8 inches
Realist said on 20/Mar/14
Rob can people really lose almost 4 inches in a life time that means a 5'8 guy would become 5'4.
Editor Rob
Rob can people really lose almost 4 inches in a life time that means a 5'8 guy would become 5'4.
Editor Rob the longer your spine the more potential for losing more. If you lost an inch by 70's that is pretty common for men, 2 inches would be more common for women, but once you get to 80-90 that's when you can lose a fair chunk.
James B said on 19/Mar/14
Orbach was probably 6'1 flat by that stage
Orbach was probably 6'1 flat by that stage
jervis said on 19/Mar/14
In escape from alcatraz there is a tall tin actor in many sceans with clint.I forget his name but I seen him listed as 6ft4 and clint looks as tall as him.If humprys was 5ft8 then clint was easly 6ft4 in at his peak.
In escape from alcatraz there is a tall tin actor in many sceans with clint.I forget his name but I seen him listed as 6ft4 and clint looks as tall as him.If humprys was 5ft8 then clint was easly 6ft4 in at his peak.
chucker said on 19/Mar/14
Jeff Bridges is not and never was 6'2. 6'1" max.
Jeff Bridges is not and never was 6'2. 6'1" max.
IosuLM said on 19/Mar/14
Click Here
Look this picture... Michael Moriarty is taller than jerry orbach (6 1.5)... In Pale Rider Clint is taller tan Michael... (2 cms)
Click Here
Look this picture... Michael Moriarty is taller than jerry orbach (6 1.5)... In Pale Rider Clint is taller tan Michael... (2 cms)
James B said on 19/Mar/14
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
I think clint looked 6'2 or 6'2.5 even back in escape from Alcatraz. Looked the same height range as Morgan freeman in that film. Granted I think he appears 6'3 in the any which way you can films.
Also I can't see clint looking any taller than 189cm in the line of fire.
Arch Stanton says on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
I think clint looked 6'2 or 6'2.5 even back in escape from Alcatraz. Looked the same height range as Morgan freeman in that film. Granted I think he appears 6'3 in the any which way you can films.
Also I can't see clint looking any taller than 189cm in the line of fire.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/14
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
Eastwood was looking around 6'2.5 by 1995. Looks about that in Bridges if Madison.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Mar/14
John Humphreys? 5 ft 8. And yeah in that 1967 interview Eastwood looks easily 6'4".
John Humphreys? 5 ft 8. And yeah in that 1967 interview Eastwood looks easily 6'4".
jervis said on 18/Mar/14
Dose anybody no how tall john humprys the bbc news reader is,because there is an interview with him and clint on YouTube,and clint is so much taller than him he makes humprys look like a little boy.On the photo of clint and arnie both men look almost the same hight with clint slightly taller.But there is another photo of both men from the same peroid,both are holding a baby,and in that photo clint is clerarly 2inches taller than arnie.
Dose anybody no how tall john humprys the bbc news reader is,because there is an interview with him and clint on YouTube,and clint is so much taller than him he makes humprys look like a little boy.On the photo of clint and arnie both men look almost the same hight with clint slightly taller.But there is another photo of both men from the same peroid,both are holding a baby,and in that photo clint is clerarly 2inches taller than arnie.
James B said on 17/Mar/14
By 1995 arnie was probably no taller than 186cm. In this photo clint looks 6'1.5-6'2
Click Here
By 1995 arnie was probably no taller than 186cm. In this photo clint looks 6'1.5-6'2
Click Here
James B said on 17/Mar/14
Bridges might have been 186cm at peak?
Even though I thought clint looked 6'2 range in dead pool that might have just because he was much bulkier. in heartbreak ridge, in the line of fire and unforgiven, escape from alcatraz as well I thought he looked more 6'2 in those particular movies. I agree with arch though in the enforcer he looked 6'4 or 6'3 1/2.
He defo looked shorter in his movies from the 80s compared to his 70s movies. Thinning hairstlye, natural shrinking and being heavier could have had something to do with that?
Bridges might have been 186cm at peak?
Even though I thought clint looked 6'2 range in dead pool that might have just because he was much bulkier. in heartbreak ridge, in the line of fire and unforgiven, escape from alcatraz as well I thought he looked more 6'2 in those particular movies. I agree with arch though in the enforcer he looked 6'4 or 6'3 1/2.
He defo looked shorter in his movies from the 80s compared to his 70s movies. Thinning hairstlye, natural shrinking and being heavier could have had something to do with that?
Sam said on 17/Mar/14
This article claims "about 6'3"" as the height for both Eastwood and John Wayne:
Click Here
This article claims "about 6'3"" as the height for both Eastwood and John Wayne:
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 17/Mar/14
Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Bridges.
Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Bridges.
James B said on 16/Mar/14
In thunderbolt looked 6'3
In thunderbolt looked 6'3
James B said on 14/Mar/14
Sutherland often looked 6'2 1/2 range
Sutherland often looked 6'2 1/2 range
Arch Stanton said on 13/Mar/14
Goldblum looks 2cm taller than Sutherland to me.
Goldblum looks 2cm taller than Sutherland to me.
James B said on 11/Mar/14
Eastwood looked 6'3 range in a lot of his films
Eastwood looked 6'3 range in a lot of his films
IosuLM said on 11/Mar/14
Click Here
They look at jeef and Donald ... are similar in cutting height ... and clint was higher than donald!
Click Here
They look at jeef and Donald ... are similar in cutting height ... and clint was higher than donald!
Arch Stanton said on 9/Mar/14
So have I Jervis and him and Sutherland barely ever stand next to each other in the film but on the occasions where they're together Eastwood look ed a bit taller. Look at the chin level when they first meet. Aside from that anyway Eastwood LOOKED 6'4 in Kelly's Heroes as he did in most of his 60s and 70s films.
So have I Jervis and him and Sutherland barely ever stand next to each other in the film but on the occasions where they're together Eastwood look ed a bit taller. Look at the chin level when they first meet. Aside from that anyway Eastwood LOOKED 6'4 in Kelly's Heroes as he did in most of his 60s and 70s films.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
I have seen kellys heros many times and to my eye clint and Sutherland look the same hight,even in photos from the movie i see no difference in hight between both men.But in space cowboys Sutherland looks taller by at lest 1inch showing clint had lost at least 1inch by the age of 70.
I have seen kellys heros many times and to my eye clint and Sutherland look the same hight,even in photos from the movie i see no difference in hight between both men.But in space cowboys Sutherland looks taller by at lest 1inch showing clint had lost at least 1inch by the age of 70.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
I ment he looked shorter than 6ft3.5 because of slouching when he eas young.l think now he is around 6ft1 but never stands stright so tendes to look shorter.
I ment he looked shorter than 6ft3.5 because of slouching when he eas young.l think now he is around 6ft1 but never stands stright so tendes to look shorter.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Mar/14
He's lost a lot of height, not just slouching. He actually looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 70s.
He's lost a lot of height, not just slouching. He actually looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 70s.
jervis said on 8/Mar/14
Eastwood weak 6ft4 more like 6f t3.5 most of the day,but looks shorter now because of slouching.
Eastwood weak 6ft4 more like 6f t3.5 most of the day,but looks shorter now because of slouching.
arbuckle said on 2/Mar/14
I think Clint was inches taller when he first became famous than he is now.
He is at least 80 years old after all. 3-2-2014.
I think Clint was inches taller when he first became famous than he is now.
He is at least 80 years old after all. 3-2-2014.
Bruno said on 1/Mar/14
Presnell does look taller but then he is listed on other sites as 6'5''.
Presnell does look taller but then he is listed on other sites as 6'5''.
berta said on 28/Feb/14
Click Here about the same height as ali here. I think clint was 191 and measured 193 in the morning and then said he was that height and probably didnt thinkm utch about morning and evening height. He is listed the same height as goldblum but i think goldblum was almost 3 cm taller when both was in peak.
Click Here about the same height as ali here. I think clint was 191 and measured 193 in the morning and then said he was that height and probably didnt thinkm utch about morning and evening height. He is listed the same height as goldblum but i think goldblum was almost 3 cm taller when both was in peak.
Ronster said on 22/Feb/14
Thebad7, excellent post. Sadly not many on here are the least bit interseted in the truth lol.
Thebad7, excellent post. Sadly not many on here are the least bit interseted in the truth lol.
chucker said on 12/Feb/14
Okay Arch, For peak height I'll say 6'3" and POSSIBLY some change, barefoot, in the morning.
Okay Arch, For peak height I'll say 6'3" and POSSIBLY some change, barefoot, in the morning.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Feb/14
You can argue 6'3" range barefoot but I think it's obvious in the comparisons he wasn't under that.
You can argue 6'3" range barefoot but I think it's obvious in the comparisons he wasn't under that.
chucker said on 11/Feb/14
Hey lighten up Arch. No body said Clint was .5" to 1" taller than Van Cleef and Bridges. I believe if he was a legit 6' 4" he would tower over them. I always thought Bridges was only 6'1" anyway. Clint was taller than those actors but not by too much. I and many here believe Clint was not 6'4" but quite tall none the less. A legit 6 3" guy is tall and he would seem taller if he was lean like Eastwood.
Hey lighten up Arch. No body said Clint was .5" to 1" taller than Van Cleef and Bridges. I believe if he was a legit 6' 4" he would tower over them. I always thought Bridges was only 6'1" anyway. Clint was taller than those actors but not by too much. I and many here believe Clint was not 6'4" but quite tall none the less. A legit 6 3" guy is tall and he would seem taller if he was lean like Eastwood.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Feb/14
Yea Avim don't both answering the "he was 6'2.5" tops type of posters. Anybody who thinks he was only 0.5-1 inch taller at 6'2.5" next to guys like Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges really needs glasses!!
Yea Avim don't both answering the "he was 6'2.5" tops type of posters. Anybody who thinks he was only 0.5-1 inch taller at 6'2.5" next to guys like Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges really needs glasses!!
avi said on 8/Feb/14
@Mark says on 30/Jan/14
Aren't you the guy from the roger Moore page? If so you have no idea of height as you thought Lee was over 4 inches taller. Your judgement is skewed.
@Mark says on 30/Jan/14
Aren't you the guy from the roger Moore page? If so you have no idea of height as you thought Lee was over 4 inches taller. Your judgement is skewed.
chucker said on 8/Feb/14
I do not believe Clint was ever 6'4" I think 6'3" tops. Just the way I see it folks. He had the kind of lean build that made him look taller than he really was. Plus as a leading man directors used camera shots enhanced his height. He definitly did not tower over alot of actors who were in the 6'1 to 6'2" range like Lee Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges.
I do not believe Clint was ever 6'4" I think 6'3" tops. Just the way I see it folks. He had the kind of lean build that made him look taller than he really was. Plus as a leading man directors used camera shots enhanced his height. He definitly did not tower over alot of actors who were in the 6'1 to 6'2" range like Lee Van Cleef and Jeff Bridges.
rowdy yates 188cm said on 7/Feb/14
Clint's always looked like a 6'2"1/2 guy to me right back from the start. He was'nt 6'4" There are far to many pics from the 80's 90's to prove this. Beside he would stood at around 6'4" any way. There' s no way the guy lost nearly ten cm in height. He would still stand around 187/188cm today even at his age. Iknow a few 70 80 yr olds and are still 6'5 or 6'4" evev
Even at 80 the most shrinkage would be 4cm maximum.
Clint's always looked like a 6'2"1/2 guy to me right back from the start. He was'nt 6'4" There are far to many pics from the 80's 90's to prove this. Beside he would stood at around 6'4" any way. There' s no way the guy lost nearly ten cm in height. He would still stand around 187/188cm today even at his age. Iknow a few 70 80 yr olds and are still 6'5 or 6'4" evev
Even at 80 the most shrinkage would be 4cm maximum.
jervis said on 4/Feb/14
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
Just watched that show Presnell looks to have an inch on Clint,Ali an inch shorter than Clint,making 40 year old unshrunken Clint 6ft3 as I always taught he was.
176,2Tunman said on 2/Feb/14
Looked very similar to 191-2 Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
Looked very similar to 191-2 Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
Tony G said on 31/Jan/14
@thebad7: Very good summary. Seems accurate to me.
@thebad7: Very good summary. Seems accurate to me.
thebad7 said on 31/Jan/14
@Arch: Glad you liked it. Again, I think 2004/2005 was the last time Eastwood was near 6'2", and even then, Freeman had a noticeable advantage over him in MDB.
As for THE GAUNTLET, yes--no 6'2" man towers people the way Eastwood does when he's walking through that concourse to the street. That's my OPINION--even if others don't like it.
@Mark: Likewise, ace--you aren't necessarily a good judge of height yourself--but you sure sound like that ultimate judge you're criticizing. I'm 6'3" myself--or, since you want to be so precise about things: first thing out of bed and barefoot, I'm 6'3 1/2"; I'm 6'3 1/4" most of the day and I stay there until bedtime. In short, if I'm asked my height, I tell people: 6'3". You're not the only one who's encountered "poor judges of height." Personally, I believe Urich was 6'2", and if you don't agree, so be it. Having said that, I'm aware this is an "opinion" site. I happened to be sick of reading things like 'Eastwood was 6'2" tops.' That kind of comment is flat out wrong. Now, for those out there--people like you--who believe he was 6'3"+, you'll notice I've never criticized them for having that OPINION--6'3" I can buy, even if I don't agree with it, but 6'2" I can't because if it was true he wouldn't look the same height as people like George Kennedy. If you believe he was 6'3", then fine. I'm simply pointing out that the man towered over people in his films when he was younger.
And I never claimed to be an ultimate judge of anything. Appreciate your condescending post, by the way.
tb7
@Arch: Glad you liked it. Again, I think 2004/2005 was the last time Eastwood was near 6'2", and even then, Freeman had a noticeable advantage over him in MDB.
As for THE GAUNTLET, yes--no 6'2" man towers people the way Eastwood does when he's walking through that concourse to the street. That's my OPINION--even if others don't like it.
@Mark: Likewise, ace--you aren't necessarily a good judge of height yourself--but you sure sound like that ultimate judge you're criticizing. I'm 6'3" myself--or, since you want to be so precise about things: first thing out of bed and barefoot, I'm 6'3 1/2"; I'm 6'3 1/4" most of the day and I stay there until bedtime. In short, if I'm asked my height, I tell people: 6'3". You're not the only one who's encountered "poor judges of height." Personally, I believe Urich was 6'2", and if you don't agree, so be it. Having said that, I'm aware this is an "opinion" site. I happened to be sick of reading things like 'Eastwood was 6'2" tops.' That kind of comment is flat out wrong. Now, for those out there--people like you--who believe he was 6'3"+, you'll notice I've never criticized them for having that OPINION--6'3" I can buy, even if I don't agree with it, but 6'2" I can't because if it was true he wouldn't look the same height as people like George Kennedy. If you believe he was 6'3", then fine. I'm simply pointing out that the man towered over people in his films when he was younger.
And I never claimed to be an ultimate judge of anything. Appreciate your condescending post, by the way.
tb7
Arch Stanton said on 31/Jan/14
@Mark, it's an educated opinion though having seen these actors in many films and noting how they looked together. It's not just a blind guess. And generally my guesses are the same or similar to Rob's and a number of other regulars here. We don't know that Ulrich was 188cm barefoot, but we can certainly take note of what he claimed or was listed at and more importantly how he looked. And he did look close to it.
@Mark, it's an educated opinion though having seen these actors in many films and noting how they looked together. It's not just a blind guess. And generally my guesses are the same or similar to Rob's and a number of other regulars here. We don't know that Ulrich was 188cm barefoot, but we can certainly take note of what he claimed or was listed at and more importantly how he looked. And he did look close to it.
Mark said on 30/Jan/14
May I remind almost everyone here that none of us have actually met these people we are talking about, and even if you have, you're not neccesarily a good judge of height. I'm 6'0 exactly. I have met many a guy who says he's also 6 feet, but he's taller or shorter. There is an absolute obsession on this site that it's a given that Robert Urich was 6'2. Other actor's heights are also used to judge Eastwood's. The bottom line is, this is an OPINION site. Every now and then I'll toss in an opinion on other actors, as well as Eastwood, and there's always some guy who mouths off like he's the ultimate judge (as just happened on another page). It's ridiculous. This is an "opinion" site.
May I remind almost everyone here that none of us have actually met these people we are talking about, and even if you have, you're not neccesarily a good judge of height. I'm 6'0 exactly. I have met many a guy who says he's also 6 feet, but he's taller or shorter. There is an absolute obsession on this site that it's a given that Robert Urich was 6'2. Other actor's heights are also used to judge Eastwood's. The bottom line is, this is an OPINION site. Every now and then I'll toss in an opinion on other actors, as well as Eastwood, and there's always some guy who mouths off like he's the ultimate judge (as just happened on another page). It's ridiculous. This is an "opinion" site.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Jan/14
I was about to groan when I saw the huge post but it's actually a superb post, very well constructed and I agree with most of what you say, except on Neeson being 6'5, he himself said a bit over 6'4", so 194 for him. Eastwood at the time was about an inch shorter though as you say but had already begun losing height. And Walcott did look taller I thought but not much in it and in Mystic River production/premiere photos from 2003 before 2004-5 it's very tough to see 6'2" for Eastwood next to Robbins and him 6'2 next to Freeman in Million Dollar in 2004 but he could still look near 6'2" in some early 2000s photos agreed. And I consider The Gauntlet to be one of Eastwood's most enjoyable and underrated films too!! It's funny you say watch Eastwood walk in The Gauntlet I said EXACTLY the same thing a few months back. I said anybody who doubts 6'4" just watch him walk in The Gauntlet! It's obvious...
I was about to groan when I saw the huge post but it's actually a superb post, very well constructed and I agree with most of what you say, except on Neeson being 6'5, he himself said a bit over 6'4", so 194 for him. Eastwood at the time was about an inch shorter though as you say but had already begun losing height. And Walcott did look taller I thought but not much in it and in Mystic River production/premiere photos from 2003 before 2004-5 it's very tough to see 6'2" for Eastwood next to Robbins and him 6'2 next to Freeman in Million Dollar in 2004 but he could still look near 6'2" in some early 2000s photos agreed. And I consider The Gauntlet to be one of Eastwood's most enjoyable and underrated films too!! It's funny you say watch Eastwood walk in The Gauntlet I said EXACTLY the same thing a few months back. I said anybody who doubts 6'4" just watch him walk in The Gauntlet! It's obvious...
thebad7 said on 29/Jan/14
Every now and again, you'll see these ridiculous posts stating Eastwood was only ever 6'2" in his prime. Get real. The man was 6'4" at his peak; he always stacks up this way against tall actors and there's simply too much photographic evidence out there supporting this figure.
1965 - 1966: Second & third DOLLARS films. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Van Cleef. Both men wearing cowboy boots with similar heels.
1973: MAGNUM FORCE. Clint has 2" on 6'2" actors Tim Matheson and Robert Urich--and this is with loose posture and a footwear disadvantage (Clint in flat-soled running sneakers, and Matheson, Urich, Niven, & Soul wearing knee high Red Wing motorcycle boots with about a 1" heel). Standing side-by-side with Soul during the Charlie McCoy sendoff, Clint has almost 3" on weak 6'1" David Soul.
1974: THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. Clint has 2" and a bit of change on strong 6'1"/weak 6'2" Jeff Bridges. Standing face-to-face with 6'4" George Kennedy, Clint is the same height--and both actors are wearing similar style dress shoes.
1975: THE EIGER SANCTION. Face-to-face with strong 6'4" Gregory Walcott ("Pope"), Clint is the same height--with maybe a fraction of advantage going to Walcott. Walcott was a big, burly guy with high, powerful shoulders that sometimes made him appear even taller than what he was.
1977: THE GAUNTLET (Clint's most underrated and misunderstood film as an actor & director). In the opening scene, following the panoramic of the rising sun and the Phoenix, AZ skyline, you see Clint walking out of a bar and across Third Street to his Chevy Impala. Just look at the guy's legs. That's no 6'2" man--that's a 6'4" man. Likewise, in an early scene--when Clint is walking from the Vegas airport terminal to street level in his blue sports coat and Foster Grant gradient aviators, the man towers over bystanders the way a legitimate 6'4" man would.
1980: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN. Face-to-face with strong 6'2" William "Big Bill" Smith, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Big Bill during the Palomino bar fight when they formally meet, and then later following the big scrap in Jackson Hole, WY.
1988: THE DEAD POOL. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" Liam Neeson, Clint looks about 1" shorter. Bare minimum 6'3 1/2" for him at this stage, and it wasn't until around 1992 that the height loss became noticeable.
As late as 2004 - 2005, Clint still looked to be around the 6'2" mark, but not anymore. Today, I would guess him to be a flat 6'1" first thing in the morning, and a weak 6' by bedtime. Despite his advanced age and possible health problems (scoliosis perhaps, for example), make no mistake: the guy towered over people when he was younger, and he always stacked up well against tall men.
One final note: there is a photograph available online of a Career Achievement Dinner for John Wayne that occurred around 1969. In the photo, the Duke is standing before a giant cake, slicing into it with relish. Duke is surrounded by the major male stars of the day--Clint, Rock Hudson, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, and Fred MacMurray. Standing next to 6'5" Rock Hudson--and both men have poor posture because they're looking down at Duke cutting the cake, Clint only looks about 1" shorter than the Rock--and I believe that Rock had a bit of change for his 6'5".
6'2" peak for Clint? No. Furthermore, not everyone in Hollywood lies about their height. Clint was tall enough--he had no reason to lie about that.
tb7
Every now and again, you'll see these ridiculous posts stating Eastwood was only ever 6'2" in his prime. Get real. The man was 6'4" at his peak; he always stacks up this way against tall actors and there's simply too much photographic evidence out there supporting this figure.
1965 - 1966: Second & third DOLLARS films. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Van Cleef. Both men wearing cowboy boots with similar heels.
1973: MAGNUM FORCE. Clint has 2" on 6'2" actors Tim Matheson and Robert Urich--and this is with loose posture and a footwear disadvantage (Clint in flat-soled running sneakers, and Matheson, Urich, Niven, & Soul wearing knee high Red Wing motorcycle boots with about a 1" heel). Standing side-by-side with Soul during the Charlie McCoy sendoff, Clint has almost 3" on weak 6'1" David Soul.
1974: THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. Clint has 2" and a bit of change on strong 6'1"/weak 6'2" Jeff Bridges. Standing face-to-face with 6'4" George Kennedy, Clint is the same height--and both actors are wearing similar style dress shoes.
1975: THE EIGER SANCTION. Face-to-face with strong 6'4" Gregory Walcott ("Pope"), Clint is the same height--with maybe a fraction of advantage going to Walcott. Walcott was a big, burly guy with high, powerful shoulders that sometimes made him appear even taller than what he was.
1977: THE GAUNTLET (Clint's most underrated and misunderstood film as an actor & director). In the opening scene, following the panoramic of the rising sun and the Phoenix, AZ skyline, you see Clint walking out of a bar and across Third Street to his Chevy Impala. Just look at the guy's legs. That's no 6'2" man--that's a 6'4" man. Likewise, in an early scene--when Clint is walking from the Vegas airport terminal to street level in his blue sports coat and Foster Grant gradient aviators, the man towers over bystanders the way a legitimate 6'4" man would.
1980: ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN. Face-to-face with strong 6'2" William "Big Bill" Smith, Clint has 1.5" - 2" on Big Bill during the Palomino bar fight when they formally meet, and then later following the big scrap in Jackson Hole, WY.
1988: THE DEAD POOL. Standing face-to-face with strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" Liam Neeson, Clint looks about 1" shorter. Bare minimum 6'3 1/2" for him at this stage, and it wasn't until around 1992 that the height loss became noticeable.
As late as 2004 - 2005, Clint still looked to be around the 6'2" mark, but not anymore. Today, I would guess him to be a flat 6'1" first thing in the morning, and a weak 6' by bedtime. Despite his advanced age and possible health problems (scoliosis perhaps, for example), make no mistake: the guy towered over people when he was younger, and he always stacked up well against tall men.
One final note: there is a photograph available online of a Career Achievement Dinner for John Wayne that occurred around 1969. In the photo, the Duke is standing before a giant cake, slicing into it with relish. Duke is surrounded by the major male stars of the day--Clint, Rock Hudson, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, and Fred MacMurray. Standing next to 6'5" Rock Hudson--and both men have poor posture because they're looking down at Duke cutting the cake, Clint only looks about 1" shorter than the Rock--and I believe that Rock had a bit of change for his 6'5".
6'2" peak for Clint? No. Furthermore, not everyone in Hollywood lies about their height. Clint was tall enough--he had no reason to lie about that.
tb7
Bruno said on 28/Jan/14
Looked at In the line of fire (1993), Eastwood stands face to face with Brian Libby, Libby is listed as 6'4'' and he looks to be .5'' taller than Clint.
Late on he is in a scene with Fred Dalton Thompson(6'5'') and they never stand face to face so its hard to judge but Thompson looks about 1.5 - 2 '' taller.
Both men are quite a bit younger than Clint, so I'd put his peak height at 6'4''
and around 6'3.5'' in 1993.
Looked at In the line of fire (1993), Eastwood stands face to face with Brian Libby, Libby is listed as 6'4'' and he looks to be .5'' taller than Clint.
Late on he is in a scene with Fred Dalton Thompson(6'5'') and they never stand face to face so its hard to judge but Thompson looks about 1.5 - 2 '' taller.
Both men are quite a bit younger than Clint, so I'd put his peak height at 6'4''
and around 6'3.5'' in 1993.
Ali said on 26/Jan/14
Clint Eastwood looks 6ft tops these days. I don't see him standing 6'1
at all. He definitely has lost at least 2 inches height. He was at least
6'2 in his prime. I think 6'3 peak might be possible for him.
Clint Eastwood looks 6ft tops these days. I don't see him standing 6'1
at all. He definitely has lost at least 2 inches height. He was at least
6'2 in his prime. I think 6'3 peak might be possible for him.
avi said on 26/Jan/14
always a 6'3 range when younger.
always a 6'3 range when younger.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/14
I actually think Eastwood could have measured 194 out of bed at peak.
I actually think Eastwood could have measured 194 out of bed at peak.
Mark said on 20/Jan/14
Perhaps it's all designed to keep our egos in check (although I don't think Sean Connery has shrunk much, nor has my 6'2, 78 year old uncle...if at all). But it is startling to see that this guy, Eastwood, so towering in earlier films (though I still say 6'3 plus, not 6'4), has shrunk so much, clearly.
Perhaps it's all designed to keep our egos in check (although I don't think Sean Connery has shrunk much, nor has my 6'2, 78 year old uncle...if at all). But it is startling to see that this guy, Eastwood, so towering in earlier films (though I still say 6'3 plus, not 6'4), has shrunk so much, clearly.
James B said on 20/Jan/14
In unforgiven I think clint eastwood stood 189-190cm.
In his prime probably was 6'3 1/2
In unforgiven I think clint eastwood stood 189-190cm.
In his prime probably was 6'3 1/2
thebad7 said on 20/Jan/14
There's no doubting it: he's no longer 6'4" and he hasn't seen that height since the late 80s/early 90s. Although he's serious about fitness and he's always taken good care of himself, time catches everyone. Every once in awhile, someone will bring up the hump he has where his neck and shoulders connect to his back. Even as a younger man--I'm thinking specifically of 1968's COOGAN'S BLUFF and both 1971's THE BEGUILED and PLAY MISTY FOR ME----he had that hump that would crane his head and neck downwards. He tended towards a looser posture, but when he stood ramrod straight, there was no doubting he was a tall man. I suspect this hump is part of the reason why he's lost so much height from his youth. If you look at his legs in the 60s DOLLARS films, they are ungodly long--he has the legs of a 6'6" - 6'7" man. Even today in some photos, you can still see it: he still has those long legs. The height he's lost is from his torso.
His listings:
Early 50/late 80s: 6'4".
1992 (UNFORGIVEN): 6'3". Still noticeably taller than Hackman and Freeman.
2002 (BLOOD WORK): weak 6'3"/strong 6'2". A hair taller than strong 6'2" Jeff Daniels.
2004 (MILLION DOLLAR BABY): 6'2". About even with Morgan Freeman--Freeman just a hair taller.
2008 (GRAN TORINO): weak 6'2"/strong 6'1". 2" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch (Martin the Barber).
2012 (TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE): weak 6'1/strong 6'.
If you look at recent photos of him with Justin Timberlake and Leo DiCaprio, he only looks about an inch and perhaps a tiny bit of change taller than them--and both of them I believe to be under 6' (strong 5'10"/weak 5'11"). In the old days, had Timberlake and DiCaprio been around a young and in his prime Eastwood, he'd easily tower over both of them.
Rob, both your current and peak listings for Clint are spot on.
tb7
There's no doubting it: he's no longer 6'4" and he hasn't seen that height since the late 80s/early 90s. Although he's serious about fitness and he's always taken good care of himself, time catches everyone. Every once in awhile, someone will bring up the hump he has where his neck and shoulders connect to his back. Even as a younger man--I'm thinking specifically of 1968's COOGAN'S BLUFF and both 1971's THE BEGUILED and PLAY MISTY FOR ME----he had that hump that would crane his head and neck downwards. He tended towards a looser posture, but when he stood ramrod straight, there was no doubting he was a tall man. I suspect this hump is part of the reason why he's lost so much height from his youth. If you look at his legs in the 60s DOLLARS films, they are ungodly long--he has the legs of a 6'6" - 6'7" man. Even today in some photos, you can still see it: he still has those long legs. The height he's lost is from his torso.
His listings:
Early 50/late 80s: 6'4".
1992 (UNFORGIVEN): 6'3". Still noticeably taller than Hackman and Freeman.
2002 (BLOOD WORK): weak 6'3"/strong 6'2". A hair taller than strong 6'2" Jeff Daniels.
2004 (MILLION DOLLAR BABY): 6'2". About even with Morgan Freeman--Freeman just a hair taller.
2008 (GRAN TORINO): weak 6'2"/strong 6'1". 2" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch (Martin the Barber).
2012 (TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE): weak 6'1/strong 6'.
If you look at recent photos of him with Justin Timberlake and Leo DiCaprio, he only looks about an inch and perhaps a tiny bit of change taller than them--and both of them I believe to be under 6' (strong 5'10"/weak 5'11"). In the old days, had Timberlake and DiCaprio been around a young and in his prime Eastwood, he'd easily tower over both of them.
Rob, both your current and peak listings for Clint are spot on.
tb7
MOF said on 18/Jan/14
I met him and worked with him on a scene in Flags of our Fathers and he appeared 6'1" tops. I was surprised because he was always said to be this extremely tall guy. He must've lost some height but he was 184-185cm in 2005, no question.
Current listing is dead on. But I'm not sure that he ever was 6'4", even in his prime.
I met him and worked with him on a scene in Flags of our Fathers and he appeared 6'1" tops. I was surprised because he was always said to be this extremely tall guy. He must've lost some height but he was 184-185cm in 2005, no question.
Current listing is dead on. But I'm not sure that he ever was 6'4", even in his prime.
James said on 31/Dec/13
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.
In eiger sanction Kennedy looked noticeably taller than clint in one scene. Maybe clint by that stage had lost a bit of height but then Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken by the time of that movie so he may have lost a but of height too?
filmfan says on 31/Dec/13
I think the site has got it right. 6'4'' significant height loss about 6ft or thereabouts today. If you see recent clips of Clint his legs look really long compared to body, like he has lost height in torso. In films with big guys like George Kennedy and Donald Sutherland Clint looks similar in height. Perhaps you could say he was half an inch shorter or half an inch taller than either but close enough so little difference could be seen. The only thing that causes me to doubt this is the publicity shots for Mystic River where 6'5'' Tim Robbins appears to tower over Clint. Serious height loss maybe.
In eiger sanction Kennedy looked noticeably taller than clint in one scene. Maybe clint by that stage had lost a bit of height but then Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken by the time of that movie so he may have lost a but of height too?
Tony D said on 30/Dec/13
"Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie."
Arch, we are in agreement, in that movie (i've watched the whole thing) Eastwood looked at least as tall as Sutherland. Maybe you misread what i wrote.
"Arch Stanton says on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie."
Arch, we are in agreement, in that movie (i've watched the whole thing) Eastwood looked at least as tall as Sutherland. Maybe you misread what i wrote.
James said on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.
Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
Arch Stanton says on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Unlike in Dirty Harry magnum force was one of the movies where 6'4 looked believable. In dead pool I thought clint looked in the 6'2 range but looking and 'being' a certain height are 2 different things.
Arch unless we measure him we don't know for sure either if neeson was over 193cm peak. Don't forget there was one time when rob had Liam at 192cm.
James said on 30/Dec/13
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Except that he had 2 inch cowboy boots on, had a 2 inch hairstyle and wore a cowboy hat as well. If he was a legit 6'4 barefoot he should have looked 6'7 or 6'8 in that film taking all factors into account. Yet the most he looked to me in that film was maybe 6'5.
Still would not argue against him being near the 6'4 mark at his peak. Although perhaps 193cm would have been his height at lunchtime.
Arch Stanton says on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Except that he had 2 inch cowboy boots on, had a 2 inch hairstyle and wore a cowboy hat as well. If he was a legit 6'4 barefoot he should have looked 6'7 or 6'8 in that film taking all factors into account. Yet the most he looked to me in that film was maybe 6'5.
Still would not argue against him being near the 6'4 mark at his peak. Although perhaps 193cm would have been his height at lunchtime.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
A Perfect World was 1993, he started to look 189-90 around that time in the mid 1990s if you seem him with Arnie.
A Perfect World was 1993, he started to look 189-90 around that time in the mid 1990s if you seem him with Arnie.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
berta says on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
He was only about an inch shorter than 6'4.25" peak Liam Neeson in 1988 at almost 60 and between 3 and 4 inches shorter than 6'6.5" James Cromwell in Pink Cadillac in 1989. He was around 6'3" at 60 and had already begun losing height, you watch him back in films like Magnum Force and The Gauntlet. I think it was clear he was around 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/13
You'd guess him more at 180-90 pounds back in the 60s I agree.
You'd guess him more at 180-90 pounds back in the 60s I agree.
Goose said on 29/Dec/13
My friend met him at his golf course/hotel and while my friend in about 5'10 he remarked Eastwood wasn't noticeably tall. I realize that's vague but it implies to me he probably under 6'2 at this point.
My friend met him at his golf course/hotel and while my friend in about 5'10 he remarked Eastwood wasn't noticeably tall. I realize that's vague but it implies to me he probably under 6'2 at this point.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Dec/13
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie.
He edged out Sutherland Tony if anything. Watch the whole movie.
James said on 27/Dec/13
I think he was no taller than 191cm in heartbreak ridge
I think he was no taller than 191cm in heartbreak ridge
Tony D said on 27/Dec/13
In Kelly's Heroes (1970) he doesn't look shorter than Sutherland youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY
Rob, what do you think?
In Kelly's Heroes (1970) he doesn't look shorter than Sutherland youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY
Rob, what do you think?
berta said on 27/Dec/13
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
I start to think clint eastwood was a strong 191 in his youth only time he looked 193 was in cowboy boots that can make a 189 huy look 193. He could even been 190. For example in the movie a perfect world with kevin kostner he looked slightly taller and was a litte over 60 years and i belvieve kevins costner is 186 that makes clint 188-189 in that age. MY uncle is 61 and has worked hard and havent shrunked anything. clint eastwood havent work with his body at all ecxept from training. If he was 188-189 at 60 years old he was max 191 in his youth.
Mark said on 26/Dec/13
If he really was a solid 6'4 in Coogans' Bluff, then we are talking about a guy, with cowboy boots, who was walking through that movie at six foot six inches, not counting puffy hair and a cowboy hat. I just don't buy it. I still say he was scraping 6'4 out of bed, on a good early day and at his most peakish moment (whatever that is), but more likely a bit over 6'3. A guy who was 6'4 with 2 inch healls ..especially in the 1960's, would not just be taller than alot of people, he would dwarf them. Eastwood was the former, not the latter.
If he really was a solid 6'4 in Coogans' Bluff, then we are talking about a guy, with cowboy boots, who was walking through that movie at six foot six inches, not counting puffy hair and a cowboy hat. I just don't buy it. I still say he was scraping 6'4 out of bed, on a good early day and at his most peakish moment (whatever that is), but more likely a bit over 6'3. A guy who was 6'4 with 2 inch healls ..especially in the 1960's, would not just be taller than alot of people, he would dwarf them. Eastwood was the former, not the latter.
James said on 26/Dec/13
Funny arch clint eastwood weighed 14 stone 3 in the 1960s. For 6'3.5-6'4 that is defo on the heavy side yet he always looked very slim. Maybe his very tall frame made him look slimmer perhaps?
By the time of dead pool he looked heavier since he worked out more and must have weighed 15 stone 6 by that stage. For 6'3 that is overweight yet still he did not look fat........
Funny arch clint eastwood weighed 14 stone 3 in the 1960s. For 6'3.5-6'4 that is defo on the heavy side yet he always looked very slim. Maybe his very tall frame made him look slimmer perhaps?
By the time of dead pool he looked heavier since he worked out more and must have weighed 15 stone 6 by that stage. For 6'3 that is overweight yet still he did not look fat........
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/13
I think today he would acknowledge that he's shrunk a lot but when he said 6'4" back in 2003 I think he probably genuinely thought he was still that height and probably hadn't been measured in ages. You'd have expected him to realize though having shot Mystic River and standing next to Tim Robbins that he was no longer anywhere near it!!...
I think today he would acknowledge that he's shrunk a lot but when he said 6'4" back in 2003 I think he probably genuinely thought he was still that height and probably hadn't been measured in ages. You'd have expected him to realize though having shot Mystic River and standing next to Tim Robbins that he was no longer anywhere near it!!...
Tony G said on 25/Dec/13
Clint seemed about 3 inches taller than 6'1" David Soul in "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Clint seemed about 3 inches taller than 6'1" David Soul in "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 23/Dec/13
Rob, 2003 isn't really "recently". I'm guessing that line has been up here since 2004!
Editor Rob
Rob, 2003 isn't really "recently". I'm guessing that line has been up here since 2004!
Editor Rob not been updated since forever, although I will do it now :)
Arch Stanton said on 23/Dec/13
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
Yeah anybody who doubts he was 6 ft 4 should see Coogan's Bluff.
johnmcc said on 21/Dec/13
He was taller than 6'2 Van Cleef in the spaghetti westerns so your estimate of 6'1 range is ridiculous.
He was taller than 6'2 Van Cleef in the spaghetti westerns so your estimate of 6'1 range is ridiculous.
Sam said on 20/Dec/13
6'1.5" at peak in his socks??? I want some of what you're smoking.
6'1.5" at peak in his socks??? I want some of what you're smoking.
rowdy yatea said on 20/Dec/13
Clint was 6feet 1 1/2 inches tall in his socks. That's the reality. the evidence is clearly there through each decade. He stands around the 1.83m mark nowadays. 3in dowagers hump/bad back what the frack!!!!?????? Every other actor he worked with was under 5'10" mostly.
Clint was 6feet 1 1/2 inches tall in his socks. That's the reality. the evidence is clearly there through each decade. He stands around the 1.83m mark nowadays. 3in dowagers hump/bad back what the frack!!!!?????? Every other actor he worked with was under 5'10" mostly.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/13
Solid 6ft0.5/184cm now if not a weak 6ft1. I have a hard time believing he lost more than 3in. Chances are, IMO he wasn't quite 6ft4 except for as James pointed out, in the morning.
Solid 6ft0.5/184cm now if not a weak 6ft1. I have a hard time believing he lost more than 3in. Chances are, IMO he wasn't quite 6ft4 except for as James pointed out, in the morning.
ian c. said on 11/Dec/13
I'm going to go along with Eastwood at six foot four when young, but he had an inch and a half of hair and a head the size of a packing crate. By which I mean, other parts of him, like maybe his torso, are shorter than you might expect on a man that tall.
I'm going to go along with Eastwood at six foot four when young, but he had an inch and a half of hair and a head the size of a packing crate. By which I mean, other parts of him, like maybe his torso, are shorter than you might expect on a man that tall.
James said on 9/Dec/13
I think he would have measured 6'3.5 at night in the 60's/70s, 6'3.75 afternoon and 6'4 in the morning and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 out of bed.
Weak 6'4 guy at his peak
I think he would have measured 6'3.5 at night in the 60's/70s, 6'3.75 afternoon and 6'4 in the morning and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 out of bed.
Weak 6'4 guy at his peak
Jamie said on 5/Dec/13
Peak height: 6ft 4 (193 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.5 (184 cm)
What is it with you people on here always labelling celebs smaller than their actual height.
Peak height: 6ft 4 (193 cm)
Current height: 6ft 0.5 (184 cm)
What is it with you people on here always labelling celebs smaller than their actual height.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Nov/13
Yeah MD, 5'10.5-5'11" seems a good shout for Scott. Kyle looks near Clint's peak height I think but he can look shorter a lot.
Yeah MD, 5'10.5-5'11" seems a good shout for Scott. Kyle looks near Clint's peak height I think but he can look shorter a lot.
MD said on 20/Nov/13
Arch, I think Scott is just under 5'11". There are some pics with him an Erin Heatherton, listed her as being 5'10.5". She's in some heeled boots, but not ridiculously heeled, and he's in regular gym shoes. It looks like if she was in flats, she's be as tall as him. I'm guessing him 5'10.5" to 5'10.75".
Arch, I think Scott is just under 5'11". There are some pics with him an Erin Heatherton, listed her as being 5'10.5". She's in some heeled boots, but not ridiculously heeled, and he's in regular gym shoes. It looks like if she was in flats, she's be as tall as him. I'm guessing him 5'10.5" to 5'10.75".
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
See you can see when he's stood straight Click Here that Kyle Eastwood looks near 6'4" as he claims. He's a bit nearer the camera than Pitt who probably has footwear advantage and Jolie is about 5'10" in heels.
See you can see when he's stood straight Click Here that Kyle Eastwood looks near 6'4" as he claims. He's a bit nearer the camera than Pitt who probably has footwear advantage and Jolie is about 5'10" in heels.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
See at times Kyle can look 6'4" Click Here and then look even a questionable 6'2" !! Click Here although you can see he's slumped posture. I think it has to do with posture. He really looks towering on stage. I doubt he's measure under 6'3" if stood straight.
See at times Kyle can look 6'4" Click Here and then look even a questionable 6'2" !! Click Here although you can see he's slumped posture. I think it has to do with posture. He really looks towering on stage. I doubt he's measure under 6'3" if stood straight.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/13
I've seen photographs of his parents and neither of them look very tall and he doesn't look like them at all. Father possibly 6ft, mother maybe 5'5". I think he was just one of those anomalies, although he could have always had a very tall grandfather. Kyle Eastwood I think is actually near 6'4" but he can look more 6'2" range in a lot of photos. I've seen him on stage and he really does look near 6'4". Scott Eastwood on the other hand I'd say more 5'11, probably had an average-short mother.
I've seen photographs of his parents and neither of them look very tall and he doesn't look like them at all. Father possibly 6ft, mother maybe 5'5". I think he was just one of those anomalies, although he could have always had a very tall grandfather. Kyle Eastwood I think is actually near 6'4" but he can look more 6'2" range in a lot of photos. I've seen him on stage and he really does look near 6'4". Scott Eastwood on the other hand I'd say more 5'11, probably had an average-short mother.
jervis said on 3/Nov/13
In Bruce Almighty Carrey and Freeman looked almost the same hight,Freeman maybe half an inch taller than Carrey.So Ali your saying Cage is 5ft9 and since Connery was about 2 inches taller than him in the Rock,that Connery was only 5ft11,I dont think so.
In Bruce Almighty Carrey and Freeman looked almost the same hight,Freeman maybe half an inch taller than Carrey.So Ali your saying Cage is 5ft9 and since Connery was about 2 inches taller than him in the Rock,that Connery was only 5ft11,I dont think so.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Nov/13
So based on your rule of thumb Ali Chuck Connors was 6'3.5, Christopher Lee 6'2", Gary Copper 6' (claimed 6'2), Vincent Price 6'2, Sean Connery 5'11.5", Rock Hudson 6'1.5" etc.
So based on your rule of thumb Ali Chuck Connors was 6'3.5, Christopher Lee 6'2", Gary Copper 6' (claimed 6'2), Vincent Price 6'2, Sean Connery 5'11.5", Rock Hudson 6'1.5" etc.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Nov/13
Ali, Freeman was barely taller than Carey in Bruce Almighty. An inch at the very most.
Ali, Freeman was barely taller than Carey in Bruce Almighty. An inch at the very most.
Ali said on 1/Nov/13
Arch what are you talking about? Morgan Freeman is not slightly taller
than Carrey. Freeman is about 6'1.5 Has 2 inches or more on Carrey.
Federer at 6'1 was clearly taller than Will Smith. So smith is about 6'0. Smith was taller than Hackman. Ive seen the movie many times.
Hollywood actors add 2 inches to their height. This is common knowledge.
Clint was no 6'4. Maybe 6'3. Personally I think 189cm. Great height. In hollywood
at that height you are a giant. Actors are short in general .
Arch what are you talking about? Morgan Freeman is not slightly taller
than Carrey. Freeman is about 6'1.5 Has 2 inches or more on Carrey.
Federer at 6'1 was clearly taller than Will Smith. So smith is about 6'0. Smith was taller than Hackman. Ive seen the movie many times.
Hollywood actors add 2 inches to their height. This is common knowledge.
Clint was no 6'4. Maybe 6'3. Personally I think 189cm. Great height. In hollywood
at that height you are a giant. Actors are short in general .
jervis said on 1/Nov/13
There is a photo of Tim Robbins,Forest Whitker and Clint together in witch Whitker is a bit taller than Clint,Whitkers eye level is just above clints.But on the same page a photo of clint with Whitker taken about 25 years ago Whitkers eye level is just under Clints nose.If you put the younger clint with the old he would only about 1 inch off Robbins
There is a photo of Tim Robbins,Forest Whitker and Clint together in witch Whitker is a bit taller than Clint,Whitkers eye level is just above clints.But on the same page a photo of clint with Whitker taken about 25 years ago Whitkers eye level is just under Clints nose.If you put the younger clint with the old he would only about 1 inch off Robbins
Arch Stanton said on 31/Oct/13
LOL if Jim Carrey is 5'11" Morgan Freeman is struggling with a flat 6'!!
LOL if Jim Carrey is 5'11" Morgan Freeman is struggling with a flat 6'!!
zapes said on 31/Oct/13
Clint was every bit of 6'4" when I met him at his tavern in Carmel, and I'm more than 6'5". He was in his 50's then and he stood a ramrod straight 1" shorter than me. Hell of a good guy, too.
Clint was every bit of 6'4" when I met him at his tavern in Carmel, and I'm more than 6'5". He was in his 50's then and he stood a ramrod straight 1" shorter than me. Hell of a good guy, too.
Sam said on 30/Oct/13
Ali, Hackman and Smith look almost the same exact height and Hackman was near 70 at that point...
Click Here
Click Here
and wheres the evidence of Carrey being 5'11" or even 5'11.5"? Here's Carrey clearly at least an inch taller than Nicholas Cage and not much more than an inch shorter than Jeff Daniels.
Click Here
Click Here
Ali, Hackman and Smith look almost the same exact height and Hackman was near 70 at that point...
Click Here
Click Here
and wheres the evidence of Carrey being 5'11" or even 5'11.5"? Here's Carrey clearly at least an inch taller than Nicholas Cage and not much more than an inch shorter than Jeff Daniels.
Click Here
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
Mark said on 29/Oct/13
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Richie said on 25/Oct/13
Doubters! Watch the documentary "Out of the Shadows" on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray dvd. A still from 1:17:02 with 6'2" Jim Carrey-a clear 2 inches on Carrey. 2nd still at 1:17:10 with a 5'10" Prince Charles-towers over him even with a crappy posture. Get real people: he was 6'4" in his prime!
Doubters! Watch the documentary "Out of the Shadows" on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray dvd. A still from 1:17:02 with 6'2" Jim Carrey-a clear 2 inches on Carrey. 2nd still at 1:17:10 with a 5'10" Prince Charles-towers over him even with a crappy posture. Get real people: he was 6'4" in his prime!
Ali said on 18/Oct/13
Gene Hackman was clearly shorter than Will Smith, who in his turn
was about 0.5-1 inch shorter than Roger Federer who is 6'1. Nothing
ignorant about that.
Jim Carrey at 6'1.5 is hilarious, but knowing that hollywood
actors add 2 inches, that makes him 5'11.5.
Gene Hackman was clearly shorter than Will Smith, who in his turn
was about 0.5-1 inch shorter than Roger Federer who is 6'1. Nothing
ignorant about that.
Jim Carrey at 6'1.5 is hilarious, but knowing that hollywood
actors add 2 inches, that makes him 5'11.5.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Oct/13
Ali, your ignorance is beyond compare. Jim Carrey is 6ft1.5 and Hackman was without a doubt 6ft2.
Ali, your ignorance is beyond compare. Jim Carrey is 6ft1.5 and Hackman was without a doubt 6ft2.
bob said on 15/Oct/13
Those who mention back issues for Clint are partly right. Clint was a very good 6' 3.5 when younger. Several years ago he had back surgery including disc removal. He currently reaches around 6'1" barefoot. Yes age can cause shortening of the spinal column through a lower amount of fluid. However this does not happen to thpse who exercise the bacl sufficoently throigh a series of stretching exercises. I'm still 6'4" at the age of 65.
Those who mention back issues for Clint are partly right. Clint was a very good 6' 3.5 when younger. Several years ago he had back surgery including disc removal. He currently reaches around 6'1" barefoot. Yes age can cause shortening of the spinal column through a lower amount of fluid. However this does not happen to thpse who exercise the bacl sufficoently throigh a series of stretching exercises. I'm still 6'4" at the age of 65.
Rusty said on 14/Oct/13
I saw a 6'3" 185 lbs listing for Eastwood before. He never gave the same kind of 6'4" impression Neeson did. He was over 6'3" for certain, but not sure about 6'4".
I saw a 6'3" 185 lbs listing for Eastwood before. He never gave the same kind of 6'4" impression Neeson did. He was over 6'3" for certain, but not sure about 6'4".
Gerry said on 13/Oct/13
Anyone who thinks Clint was not 6'4" in his younger days should watch the Eiger Sanction more closely. He is nose to nose with Greg Walcott in one scene, side by side with George Kennedy in several & matches them exactly. They are both 6'4, unless everyone in Hollywood adds exactly 2 inches to their real height-and what are the odds of that?????
Anyone who thinks Clint was not 6'4" in his younger days should watch the Eiger Sanction more closely. He is nose to nose with Greg Walcott in one scene, side by side with George Kennedy in several & matches them exactly. They are both 6'4, unless everyone in Hollywood adds exactly 2 inches to their real height-and what are the odds of that?????
Sam said on 11/Oct/13
Greg's photo is definitely a weird one...the shortest seeming a young Eastwood has looked. As to Ali, Jim Carrey is not 5'11" and there's no reason to disbelieve Gene Hackman was near 6'2" at his peak...if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
Greg's photo is definitely a weird one...the shortest seeming a young Eastwood has looked. As to Ali, Jim Carrey is not 5'11" and there's no reason to disbelieve Gene Hackman was near 6'2" at his peak...if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
qartt said on 11/Oct/13
terrible photo greg, buddy looks a foot taller.
Click Here
why not compare eastwood to forest whitaker in 1988. he actually still looks 6'4 if whitaker is 6'2. Clint might not be 6'4 in 1988 but he is close.
terrible photo greg, buddy looks a foot taller.
Click Here
why not compare eastwood to forest whitaker in 1988. he actually still looks 6'4 if whitaker is 6'2. Clint might not be 6'4 in 1988 but he is close.
Ali said on 9/Oct/13
Rampage in the 1992 movie with Morgan Freeman, Clint is clearly shorter. I think the movies name
is unforgiven. Look for it and check the pictures. Clint is clearly about an inch or so shorter.
Jim Carrey is not tall. About a strong 5'11. Sure on this site he is 6'1.
Liam Neeson is definitely a tall guy about 6'3 6'4.
Gene Hackman was never 6'2. 6'2 for Hackman is hilarious.
Remember most hollywood heights are real height+2 inches.
Rampage in the 1992 movie with Morgan Freeman, Clint is clearly shorter. I think the movies name
is unforgiven. Look for it and check the pictures. Clint is clearly about an inch or so shorter.
Jim Carrey is not tall. About a strong 5'11. Sure on this site he is 6'1.
Liam Neeson is definitely a tall guy about 6'3 6'4.
Gene Hackman was never 6'2. 6'2 for Hackman is hilarious.
Remember most hollywood heights are real height+2 inches.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Oct/13
Yeah Neeson had about an inch on him in Dead Pool, he was around 6'3" up until 1993 I think. He looked a good 6'3 in Pink Cadillac too. He looked between 6'2" and 6'3 in Madison County which was 1995.
Yeah Neeson had about an inch on him in Dead Pool, he was around 6'3" up until 1993 I think. He looked a good 6'3 in Pink Cadillac too. He looked between 6'2" and 6'3 in Madison County which was 1995.
thebad7 said on 9/Oct/13
One other comment: Clint's height loss really didn't become noticeable to me until about 2000. In 1988's THE DEAD POOL, Clint stands face-to-face with a young Liam Neeson--whom I believe to be 6'4 1/2" - weak 6'5" at the time--and he's only 1/2" - 1" shorter, placing Clint in the strong 6'3"/weak 6'4" range. Furthermore, he's still noticeably taller than Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in 1992's UNFORGIVEN--and I believe both Hackman and Freeman to have been strong 6'2" men even at that time. Clint appears at least 1" taller than both of them, and all the actors are sporting cowboy boots.
By the time of BLOOD WORK in 2002, it's clear that Clint has lost a few inches. He looks a strong 6'2" at the most in that film, and he appears to stay in the 6'2" range through MILLION DOLLAR BABY a few years later. In GRAN TORINO in 2008, he looks to be a weak 6'2"/strong 6'1" and in photos he took with Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman around 2011, Clint looks 6'1" next to weak 6'2" Poitier and Freeman. Today, at 83, Clint is probably 6'1" flat immediately out of bed after a good night's sleep and 6' 1/2" for most of the day.
tb7
One other comment: Clint's height loss really didn't become noticeable to me until about 2000. In 1988's THE DEAD POOL, Clint stands face-to-face with a young Liam Neeson--whom I believe to be 6'4 1/2" - weak 6'5" at the time--and he's only 1/2" - 1" shorter, placing Clint in the strong 6'3"/weak 6'4" range. Furthermore, he's still noticeably taller than Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in 1992's UNFORGIVEN--and I believe both Hackman and Freeman to have been strong 6'2" men even at that time. Clint appears at least 1" taller than both of them, and all the actors are sporting cowboy boots.
By the time of BLOOD WORK in 2002, it's clear that Clint has lost a few inches. He looks a strong 6'2" at the most in that film, and he appears to stay in the 6'2" range through MILLION DOLLAR BABY a few years later. In GRAN TORINO in 2008, he looks to be a weak 6'2"/strong 6'1" and in photos he took with Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman around 2011, Clint looks 6'1" next to weak 6'2" Poitier and Freeman. Today, at 83, Clint is probably 6'1" flat immediately out of bed after a good night's sleep and 6' 1/2" for most of the day.
tb7
thebad7 said on 9/Oct/13
Rob, I posted this a few years ago, and I hope you'll post it again: the definitive proof can be found in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE in the scene that takes place at the indoor pistol range. Here, Clint is introduced to the young vigilante traffic cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and Robert Urich. Both Matheson and Urich are 6'2", Niven is about 6'1", and Soul is about 6'. You'll notice Clint walks down an incline from the lot wearing flat-soled sneakers while the rookies are all wearing knee-length Red Wing style boots with a 1" heel. Despite their footwear advantage, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson and Urich by about 2". In particular, Matheson is the best gauge as he shoots Clint's S&W Model 29 and both stand nose to nose. Even with less than perfect posture, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson--and Urich as Urich is identical in height to Matheson.
Further evidence can be found in 1974's THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. Clint has at least 2"--and probably a bit of change--on 6'2" Jeff Bridges--and he is the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy--with both men wearing identical dress shoes. There are scenes in which Clint stands face-to-face with both actors--Clint is clearly taller than Bridges, and virtually identical with Kennedy.
Today is a different story; time catches us all. As late as three years ago, Clint was pushing 6'2"; today in 2013, he can barely scrape 6'1". In recent photos, he barely looks taller than Justin Timberlake or Leo DiCaprio--both of whom I believe to be under 6' and more likely strong 5'10"/weak 5'11".
Peak: 6'4" (early 50s - late 80s).
2013, at 83: 6' 1/2" - 6'1" first thing in the morning; weak 6' by bedtime.
tb7
Rob, I posted this a few years ago, and I hope you'll post it again: the definitive proof can be found in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE in the scene that takes place at the indoor pistol range. Here, Clint is introduced to the young vigilante traffic cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and Robert Urich. Both Matheson and Urich are 6'2", Niven is about 6'1", and Soul is about 6'. You'll notice Clint walks down an incline from the lot wearing flat-soled sneakers while the rookies are all wearing knee-length Red Wing style boots with a 1" heel. Despite their footwear advantage, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson and Urich by about 2". In particular, Matheson is the best gauge as he shoots Clint's S&W Model 29 and both stand nose to nose. Even with less than perfect posture, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson--and Urich as Urich is identical in height to Matheson.
Further evidence can be found in 1974's THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. Clint has at least 2"--and probably a bit of change--on 6'2" Jeff Bridges--and he is the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy--with both men wearing identical dress shoes. There are scenes in which Clint stands face-to-face with both actors--Clint is clearly taller than Bridges, and virtually identical with Kennedy.
Today is a different story; time catches us all. As late as three years ago, Clint was pushing 6'2"; today in 2013, he can barely scrape 6'1". In recent photos, he barely looks taller than Justin Timberlake or Leo DiCaprio--both of whom I believe to be under 6' and more likely strong 5'10"/weak 5'11".
Peak: 6'4" (early 50s - late 80s).
2013, at 83: 6' 1/2" - 6'1" first thing in the morning; weak 6' by bedtime.
tb7
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Oct/13
@Ali: excuse me...he was 2in taller than a young Jim Carrey in 1987 and was barely edged out by a then strong 6ft4 Liam Neeson (Deadpool). By the mid 90s he was still taller than legit 6ft2 guys like Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman (Unforgiven).
Don't even mention his peak height. The iconic footage of him and Lee Van Cleef (not under 6ft2) speaks for itself.
@Ali: excuse me...he was 2in taller than a young Jim Carrey in 1987 and was barely edged out by a then strong 6ft4 Liam Neeson (Deadpool). By the mid 90s he was still taller than legit 6ft2 guys like Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman (Unforgiven).
Don't even mention his peak height. The iconic footage of him and Lee Van Cleef (not under 6ft2) speaks for itself.
Ali said on 3/Oct/13
One more things guys. In 1990 Clint is already like 60 years old. At that age one loses
about 1 inch, but Clint had back issues and has already lost 2 inches. He aged quite rapidly
if you ask me. I think he has lost in total about 3-4 inches.
Look at his upper body in pictures when he was young and when he was over 60. His upper body
looks much smaller. This makes it look like he has very long legs. It is clear that clint has lost at least
2.5-3inches.
Even in the picture with Selleck, Clint looks like he has lost a little bit of height.
There is no way Clint stands 6ft1 these days. He looks 5'11.5. Add 3-4 inches
that he has lost and you get something like 6'3. Maybe he was 6'2.5 which is a
great height.
One more things guys. In 1990 Clint is already like 60 years old. At that age one loses
about 1 inch, but Clint had back issues and has already lost 2 inches. He aged quite rapidly
if you ask me. I think he has lost in total about 3-4 inches.
Look at his upper body in pictures when he was young and when he was over 60. His upper body
looks much smaller. This makes it look like he has very long legs. It is clear that clint has lost at least
2.5-3inches.
Even in the picture with Selleck, Clint looks like he has lost a little bit of height.
There is no way Clint stands 6ft1 these days. He looks 5'11.5. Add 3-4 inches
that he has lost and you get something like 6'3. Maybe he was 6'2.5 which is a
great height.
Ali said on 3/Oct/13
Guys Clint was a tall guy in his prime. I am thinking 6'3 peak. 6'4 is too much.
The thing is that Clint lost height early in his career I think. He had/has back problems.
Has Clint ever commented on his back problems?
Guys Clint was a tall guy in his prime. I am thinking 6'3 peak. 6'4 is too much.
The thing is that Clint lost height early in his career I think. He had/has back problems.
Has Clint ever commented on his back problems?
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/13
@Bazzer In 1989 James Cromwell looked way taller than Clint Eastwood in Pink Cadillac. 6'4 next to his peak of 6'6.5"-6'6.75" looked impossible to me. Eastwood looked 6'3" in Pink Cadillac as he did throughout most of the 80s.
@Bazzer In 1989 James Cromwell looked way taller than Clint Eastwood in Pink Cadillac. 6'4 next to his peak of 6'6.5"-6'6.75" looked impossible to me. Eastwood looked 6'3" in Pink Cadillac as he did throughout most of the 80s.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/13
Strange but in 1989 in Pink Cadillac Eastwood looked a good 2 inches shorter than Gary Howard Klar. He was wearing cowboy boots but Klar was supposedly only 6'3". That film has so many tall guys, a number in the film are taller than Clint.
Strange but in 1989 in Pink Cadillac Eastwood looked a good 2 inches shorter than Gary Howard Klar. He was wearing cowboy boots but Klar was supposedly only 6'3". That film has so many tall guys, a number in the film are taller than Clint.
Bazzer said on 1/Oct/13
I was in Carmel in the summer of 1989 & was in the Hog's Breath Inn, which he part owned at the time, when he walked in as we were leaving. Me & my mate are both legitimate 6'1" (accurately measured, as we are in the UK Police Force) & he had a good 3 inches on us. We said hello but were too star struck to say much else! He was seriously tall & also large with it. All this nonsense about never being 6'4" is just that-utter nonsense. It's not uncommon that big guys like him suffer with posture problems later in life
I was in Carmel in the summer of 1989 & was in the Hog's Breath Inn, which he part owned at the time, when he walked in as we were leaving. Me & my mate are both legitimate 6'1" (accurately measured, as we are in the UK Police Force) & he had a good 3 inches on us. We said hello but were too star struck to say much else! He was seriously tall & also large with it. All this nonsense about never being 6'4" is just that-utter nonsense. It's not uncommon that big guys like him suffer with posture problems later in life
Arch Stanton said on 1/Oct/13
Rob do you think 179-180cm looks about right for Scott? Click Here The strange thing though is that Kyle barely looks 6'2" in that photo but seeing him on stage in jazz concerts he really does look near Clint's peak height and towers above the other musicians.
Rob do you think 179-180cm looks about right for Scott? Click Here The strange thing though is that Kyle barely looks 6'2" in that photo but seeing him on stage in jazz concerts he really does look near Clint's peak height and towers above the other musicians.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Oct/13
@Wiven. His son probably claims 6' or 6'1" I'd imagine but he really looks nothing over 5 ft 11 and is noticeably shorter than a shrunken Clint at 83. Like Clint though I think Scott is the sort of guy who'll look better in his late 30s and 40s than he does now at 27.
@Wiven. His son probably claims 6' or 6'1" I'd imagine but he really looks nothing over 5 ft 11 and is noticeably shorter than a shrunken Clint at 83. Like Clint though I think Scott is the sort of guy who'll look better in his late 30s and 40s than he does now at 27.
Wiven said on 27/Sep/13
How tall is his son Scott eastwood?
How tall is his son Scott eastwood?
Lorne??? said on 26/Sep/13
Yeah, claiming Clint Eastwood wasn't 6ft4 is outrageous to me. Like Arch said, 192cm minimum, and a solid one at that. I mean he towered over everybody in his early films. I do think height loss began in 40's, from 60's to 80's they're is a difference, although remember too, he did edge out 6ft2.25in Morgan Freeman at age 60, and as Arch said, looked a tad taller legit 6'3 Moriarty(but was Moriarty in cowboy heels? Can't remember) but yeah, this 6!2 nonsense is a joke.
Yeah, claiming Clint Eastwood wasn't 6ft4 is outrageous to me. Like Arch said, 192cm minimum, and a solid one at that. I mean he towered over everybody in his early films. I do think height loss began in 40's, from 60's to 80's they're is a difference, although remember too, he did edge out 6ft2.25in Morgan Freeman at age 60, and as Arch said, looked a tad taller legit 6'3 Moriarty(but was Moriarty in cowboy heels? Can't remember) but yeah, this 6!2 nonsense is a joke.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Sep/13
Considering how tall his dad was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Considering how tall his dad was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Sep/13
Considering how tall his tall was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Considering how tall his tall was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Goose said on 25/Sep/13
I've seen Jeff Bridges in person (Los Gatos) and he was a legit 6'2 and that was two years ago. When he and Clint were in 'Thunderboldt and Lightfoot' Clint had three inches on him. Some tall actors downgrade their height. I figure Clint was actually 6'5 in his prime.
I've seen Jeff Bridges in person (Los Gatos) and he was a legit 6'2 and that was two years ago. When he and Clint were in 'Thunderboldt and Lightfoot' Clint had three inches on him. Some tall actors downgrade their height. I figure Clint was actually 6'5 in his prime.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/13
@Jason. Watch The Gauntlet. Proportionally he looked a clear 6 ft 4.
@Jason. Watch The Gauntlet. Proportionally he looked a clear 6 ft 4.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/13
@Danimal, he was a still a bit taller than Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider in 1985 but yeah I think by then he'd begun losing height. Certainly by the late 80s he looked more 6'3". Jason, there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that Eastwood was a full 6'4" peak. He was a bit taller than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland himself had an easy two inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery. Similarly Eastwood looked his claimed 6'4" next to at least three actors and their claimed heights in Magnum Force. 192 of course is possible but I've watched all of his films and I think he looked more 6'4" than 6'3" in the 60s and 70s.
@Danimal, he was a still a bit taller than Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider in 1985 but yeah I think by then he'd begun losing height. Certainly by the late 80s he looked more 6'3". Jason, there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that Eastwood was a full 6'4" peak. He was a bit taller than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland himself had an easy two inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery. Similarly Eastwood looked his claimed 6'4" next to at least three actors and their claimed heights in Magnum Force. 192 of course is possible but I've watched all of his films and I think he looked more 6'4" than 6'3" in the 60s and 70s.
Jason said on 19/Sep/13
@DaveC
In Any Which Way You Can, Clint Eastwood looked about 2" taller than supposedly 6'2" William Smith. I suspect, however, that Smith was never the full 6'2" that he's always listed at. I've seen several clips of Smith where he looks the same height as guys who are listed as 6'1". I, myself, doubt that Eastwood was ever the full 6'4"; more like 6'3" tops!
@DaveC
In Any Which Way You Can, Clint Eastwood looked about 2" taller than supposedly 6'2" William Smith. I suspect, however, that Smith was never the full 6'2" that he's always listed at. I've seen several clips of Smith where he looks the same height as guys who are listed as 6'1". I, myself, doubt that Eastwood was ever the full 6'4"; more like 6'3" tops!
Yaspaa said on 14/Sep/13
Just looks like he's leaning back to me.
Just looks like he's leaning back to me.
dmeyer said on 2/Sep/13
does look taller than legit 5 ft 11 plus dicaprio , the guy is stil a bit over 6 ft at 80 plus
does look taller than legit 5 ft 11 plus dicaprio , the guy is stil a bit over 6 ft at 80 plus
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Aug/13
@James: Eastwood had lost a bit of height by that point.
But I doubt he was less than 6ft3. Selleck was easily 6ft4.
Aswell, I think Princess Diana was between 5ft10 and 5ft11
@James: Eastwood had lost a bit of height by that point.
But I doubt he was less than 6ft3. Selleck was easily 6ft4.
Aswell, I think Princess Diana was between 5ft10 and 5ft11
Mark said on 26/Aug/13
I was long done posting about Eastwood, but after seeing the Princess Di photos, it's quite clear that in 1985 Eastwood was not 6'4. Granted, no one shown is standing perfectly straight for a legit comparison. But, and I'm under the belief that Selleck was indeed a solid 6'4...at least in the 80's, Princess Di's eyes are even with Eastwood's nose and Selleck's adam's apple. Even if Eastwood stood straight in this photo, he couldn't extend himself as much over the Princess as Selleck is. In my opinion, my guess is that somewhere back in time, Eastwood was measured early in the day...putting him close to 6'4. He was more likely 6'2.5 plus, but the measurement stuck and is what he went by for years after. That's simply my opinion.
I was long done posting about Eastwood, but after seeing the Princess Di photos, it's quite clear that in 1985 Eastwood was not 6'4. Granted, no one shown is standing perfectly straight for a legit comparison. But, and I'm under the belief that Selleck was indeed a solid 6'4...at least in the 80's, Princess Di's eyes are even with Eastwood's nose and Selleck's adam's apple. Even if Eastwood stood straight in this photo, he couldn't extend himself as much over the Princess as Selleck is. In my opinion, my guess is that somewhere back in time, Eastwood was measured early in the day...putting him close to 6'4. He was more likely 6'2.5 plus, but the measurement stuck and is what he went by for years after. That's simply my opinion.
Kyuss said on 24/Aug/13
6-3" min,imo 6-3.5" peak. now 6-0".
6-3" min,imo 6-3.5" peak. now 6-0".
jamz said on 24/Aug/13
Never really struck me as 6'4" in his prime. More 6'2.5" - 6'3".
Never really struck me as 6'4" in his prime. More 6'2.5" - 6'3".
James said on 24/Aug/13
This is my final post but even though I think Clint Eastwood was at least 6ft3 peak these photos do support the 6'2 estimates for Eastwood.
This is my final post but even though I think Clint Eastwood was at least 6ft3 peak these photos do support the 6'2 estimates for Eastwood.
James said on 24/Aug/13
Have not posted here for a long time but I came across these rare pics from the mid 80's of tom selleck, princess Diana and clint eastwood that might be of great interest to you guys.
Click Here
Click Here
Compare Selleck and Clint Eastwood next to Diana and clearly Tom Selleck (who is 6'4) looks significantly taller. Clint Eastwood does not even look 6'3 let alone 6'4 next to the princess. Even when Selleck is a few feet away from Eastwood you can tell you that Selleck is more than 1 inch taller.
By the time of these pics age and maybe even posture probably robbed Clint eastwood of some of his height. Granted Eastwood looks much taller than Ronald Regan does next to Diana.
Have not posted here for a long time but I came across these rare pics from the mid 80's of tom selleck, princess Diana and clint eastwood that might be of great interest to you guys.
Click Here
Click Here
Compare Selleck and Clint Eastwood next to Diana and clearly Tom Selleck (who is 6'4) looks significantly taller. Clint Eastwood does not even look 6'3 let alone 6'4 next to the princess. Even when Selleck is a few feet away from Eastwood you can tell you that Selleck is more than 1 inch taller.
By the time of these pics age and maybe even posture probably robbed Clint eastwood of some of his height. Granted Eastwood looks much taller than Ronald Regan does next to Diana.
qartt said on 21/Aug/13
Okay folks how much taller do you think Eastwood is compared to Whitaker in the video. I think 2 inches, what do you think Rob?
Four years later in 1992 Eastwood look the same size as Morgan Freeman who i believe was 6ft 2.5 inches, Whitaker I think is 6ft 1.75 inches. I think Clint lost at least an inch if not one and half in the four years between 1988 and 1992. does anybody know if he had an injury?
Okay folks how much taller do you think Eastwood is compared to Whitaker in the video. I think 2 inches, what do you think Rob?
Four years later in 1992 Eastwood look the same size as Morgan Freeman who i believe was 6ft 2.5 inches, Whitaker I think is 6ft 1.75 inches. I think Clint lost at least an inch if not one and half in the four years between 1988 and 1992. does anybody know if he had an injury?
qartt said on 19/Aug/13
Click Here
Eastwood with forest Whitaker in 1988, Whitaker is taller than Eastwood now.
Click Here
Eastwood with forest Whitaker in 1988, Whitaker is taller than Eastwood now.
little sue said on 19/Aug/13
Disagree with this about shrinking Clintfan. My Mom a healthy 77 year old has gone from 5ft 1 to 4ft 11, my dad is 83 and he has gone from 5ft 6 to 5ft 4, neither have a hump back. My Nan and her two sisters all lived to 93 and went from around 5ft 2 to about 4ft 8. Just the one had a bit of a hump. I now work with a woman who is still working at 80 and she has gone from 5ft 4 to about 4ft 10. People can be fit and healthy but suffer with Osteophorosis which can cause shrinkage.
Disagree with this about shrinking Clintfan. My Mom a healthy 77 year old has gone from 5ft 1 to 4ft 11, my dad is 83 and he has gone from 5ft 6 to 5ft 4, neither have a hump back. My Nan and her two sisters all lived to 93 and went from around 5ft 2 to about 4ft 8. Just the one had a bit of a hump. I now work with a woman who is still working at 80 and she has gone from 5ft 4 to about 4ft 10. People can be fit and healthy but suffer with Osteophorosis which can cause shrinkage.
Brad said on 18/Aug/13
Eastwood 6-4? I cannot believe that. People can shrink more than several milimeters when getting older. That is possible,but that all can happen if your posture is bad while aging. You don't get really smaller, you just get slouched. I don't think that this apply for Eastwood.
I believe that he is no more than 5-11. I saw him on the show on Ellen. He was not that much bigger.Compared to Ellen, he seems shorter than no more than 6' Bill Clinton, but it is hard to say,since you don't know whether Ellen wears high heels shoes or not.
Eastwood 6-4? I cannot believe that. People can shrink more than several milimeters when getting older. That is possible,but that all can happen if your posture is bad while aging. You don't get really smaller, you just get slouched. I don't think that this apply for Eastwood.
I believe that he is no more than 5-11. I saw him on the show on Ellen. He was not that much bigger.Compared to Ellen, he seems shorter than no more than 6' Bill Clinton, but it is hard to say,since you don't know whether Ellen wears high heels shoes or not.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Aug/13
Haha yeah he was 187 in his prime, sure!! I suppose David Browse was 189 tops peak too!!
Haha yeah he was 187 in his prime, sure!! I suppose David Browse was 189 tops peak too!!
SL said on 17/Aug/13
It is ridiculous to even think that one person can shrink whole 9 cm just because of aging! As far as I know, Eastwood never had serious skeletal trauma, so there is no way of such a huge shrinkage! Aging can shrink a person by just several MILIMETERS! I think Eastwood was never over 1.88 m (6' 2"). He only appeared taller, because of his early haircut. Now he appears around 1.85 m (6' 1"), because he is often humped, as almost every old person. I think he was 1.87 m (6' 1.5") in his prime, and now is not less than 1.86 m (6' 1.2"). Please Editor Rob, consider my statement.
It is ridiculous to even think that one person can shrink whole 9 cm just because of aging! As far as I know, Eastwood never had serious skeletal trauma, so there is no way of such a huge shrinkage! Aging can shrink a person by just several MILIMETERS! I think Eastwood was never over 1.88 m (6' 2"). He only appeared taller, because of his early haircut. Now he appears around 1.85 m (6' 1"), because he is often humped, as almost every old person. I think he was 1.87 m (6' 1.5") in his prime, and now is not less than 1.86 m (6' 1.2"). Please Editor Rob, consider my statement.
DaveC said on 14/Aug/13
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak, same as his co-star in Rawhide. Look at him next to the 6'2" William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Very close. Certainly, no more than an inch taller. Look at "Unforgiven" 1992. He is shorter than Morgan Freeman. More so in "Million Dollar Baby" Now, he is about 6'1", but he's 83 !!
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak, same as his co-star in Rawhide. Look at him next to the 6'2" William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Very close. Certainly, no more than an inch taller. Look at "Unforgiven" 1992. He is shorter than Morgan Freeman. More so in "Million Dollar Baby" Now, he is about 6'1", but he's 83 !!
Ian C. said on 11/Aug/13
I admit it's churlish of me to call down Eastwood's physique. It's just that he's played so many characters that are physically overpowering, when he doesn't quite have the goods. He's the sort of man I would call rangy. He's not like Charlton Heston or Woody Strode, who were Herculean, but he likes to play characters that are. His bulking up (however he did it) in middle age is a bit of a forced effect, like an average-sized man wearing elevator shoes.
I admit it's churlish of me to call down Eastwood's physique. It's just that he's played so many characters that are physically overpowering, when he doesn't quite have the goods. He's the sort of man I would call rangy. He's not like Charlton Heston or Woody Strode, who were Herculean, but he likes to play characters that are. His bulking up (however he did it) in middle age is a bit of a forced effect, like an average-sized man wearing elevator shoes.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Aug/13
Unknown says on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
You must be blind LOL. He looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 1960s!
Unknown says on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
You must be blind LOL. He looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 1960s!
wingnut said on 11/Aug/13
Click Here;wap2
aan interesting read about clint.
He even mentions height and weight
Click Here;wap2
aan interesting read about clint.
He even mentions height and weight
wingnut said on 10/Aug/13
Ian C. He's even bigger and older in Heartbreak Ridge
Ian C. He's even bigger and older in Heartbreak Ridge
Ian C. said on 9/Aug/13
Of course I'm only guessing about Eastwood's steroid use, Sam, but he seems to have put on about twenty pounds or so for those Philo Beddoe movies. Is this actually possible for a man in his forties who is already very physically fit, unless he uses chemicals to help him along? In Any Which Way You Can, he outfights a character played by William Smith, who really was an unusually muscular man. Eastwood never looks as strong as Smith in any of their scenes together, simply because Smith was a polar mesomorph, and Eastwood possessed only slighter better than average muscularity.
Of course I'm only guessing about Eastwood's steroid use, Sam, but he seems to have put on about twenty pounds or so for those Philo Beddoe movies. Is this actually possible for a man in his forties who is already very physically fit, unless he uses chemicals to help him along? In Any Which Way You Can, he outfights a character played by William Smith, who really was an unusually muscular man. Eastwood never looks as strong as Smith in any of their scenes together, simply because Smith was a polar mesomorph, and Eastwood possessed only slighter better than average muscularity.
Rey said on 9/Aug/13
There did not seem to be much height difference between Clint and Rock.
There did not seem to be much height difference between Clint and Rock.
Rey said on 9/Aug/13
Wow good photos. Some shots (angles) reminded me of Chris Reeve, near the Superman IV era.
Wow good photos. Some shots (angles) reminded me of Chris Reeve, near the Superman IV era.
7ft5 johnson said on 7/Aug/13
max 1 inch taller than Pitt
max 1 inch taller than Pitt
Knowitall said on 6/Aug/13
Losing four inches is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Bob Hope started out at five ten and ended up around five six.
Actor Elliot Reid who recently passed away at the age of 93 was six foot two in his prime. I met him about a year ago at the facility he was living in since my mom lives there. He had packed down to about five ten.
I met Clint in the 1970s. He was definitely six four. He and George Kennedy were the same height.
Today Eastwood looks like he's down to around six one. But then he's over 80.
Losing four inches is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Bob Hope started out at five ten and ended up around five six.
Actor Elliot Reid who recently passed away at the age of 93 was six foot two in his prime. I met him about a year ago at the facility he was living in since my mom lives there. He had packed down to about five ten.
I met Clint in the 1970s. He was definitely six four. He and George Kennedy were the same height.
Today Eastwood looks like he's down to around six one. But then he's over 80.
Unknown said on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jul/13
Watched Unforgiven earlier and although the angle wasn't great (over Clint's shoulder), I thought he looked about 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman.
Watched Unforgiven earlier and although the angle wasn't great (over Clint's shoulder), I thought he looked about 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jul/13
Anybody who is convinced he was shorter than 6ft 4 peak watch The Gauntlet. Anything under a legit 6'4" looks a joke. He looks every inch of a full 6'4" in that film just watch him walk in it, never looks anything under it.
Anybody who is convinced he was shorter than 6ft 4 peak watch The Gauntlet. Anything under a legit 6'4" looks a joke. He looks every inch of a full 6'4" in that film just watch him walk in it, never looks anything under it.
jervis said on 24/Jul/13
Did not look 1inch taller than Eric Fleming in rawhide;they both looked the same hight;and Fleming was said to be 6ft 3.
Did not look 1inch taller than Eric Fleming in rawhide;they both looked the same hight;and Fleming was said to be 6ft 3.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/13
And then I watched Million Dollar Baby last night and he barely looked 6' in it and looked 4 inches shorter than the one I watched before it. Although I thought he looked easily 6'1" in Gran Torino but he was around short Hmongs.
And then I watched Million Dollar Baby last night and he barely looked 6' in it and looked 4 inches shorter than the one I watched before it. Although I thought he looked easily 6'1" in Gran Torino but he was around short Hmongs.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jul/13
Watch Two Mules for Sister Sara yesterday and he looked nothing under a legit 6'4", the man's legs alone are just too long. In one scene he absolutely towered one of the actors in it, a full head taller.
Watch Two Mules for Sister Sara yesterday and he looked nothing under a legit 6'4", the man's legs alone are just too long. In one scene he absolutely towered one of the actors in it, a full head taller.
Parker said on 22/Jul/13
Lorne says on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
Lorne - 100% agree. He said he was 6'4 when he was 15. Why on earth would he lie about that. He looked an easy 6'4 in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
Lorne says on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
Lorne - 100% agree. He said he was 6'4 when he was 15. Why on earth would he lie about that. He looked an easy 6'4 in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Jul/13
Jervis Eastwood had more than 2 inches on Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, at times it could look nearer 3, I'd say 2.5 inches.
Jervis Eastwood had more than 2 inches on Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, at times it could look nearer 3, I'd say 2.5 inches.
DB Cooper said on 11/Jul/13
6'3.5 peak
6'3.5 peak
jervis said on 3/Jul/13
I think there was a lot more than 2 cm between Eastwood an Robbins more like 2 inches.Eastwood looks max 2 inches taller than Bridges and Robbins looks at least 4 inches taller than Bridges.Remember both men were 41 years old Eastwood in 1971 add Robbins in 2009 and Bridges was at the time 6ft1 with Eastwood and Robbins,but to me there seemed to be a much bigger hight difference between Robbins and Bridges than Eastwood and Bridges,much more than 1 inch.
I think there was a lot more than 2 cm between Eastwood an Robbins more like 2 inches.Eastwood looks max 2 inches taller than Bridges and Robbins looks at least 4 inches taller than Bridges.Remember both men were 41 years old Eastwood in 1971 add Robbins in 2009 and Bridges was at the time 6ft1 with Eastwood and Robbins,but to me there seemed to be a much bigger hight difference between Robbins and Bridges than Eastwood and Bridges,much more than 1 inch.
Heightcritique said on 2/Jul/13
Eastwood looks between 6'4" and 6'5" in the early Dirty Harry movies. When he walks by door frames there is only about 3" left in the clearance. Now a days because of bad posture and spinal deterioration looks between 6'1" and 6'2" and sometimes even 6'3" which is apparent when he stands next to Freeman who is listed at 6'2".
Eastwood looks between 6'4" and 6'5" in the early Dirty Harry movies. When he walks by door frames there is only about 3" left in the clearance. Now a days because of bad posture and spinal deterioration looks between 6'1" and 6'2" and sometimes even 6'3" which is apparent when he stands next to Freeman who is listed at 6'2".
Sam said on 1/Jul/13
Comparing Eastwood to Robbins, I don't think anyone claims that Robbins and Eastwood at peak were the same height but they could have been within like 2 cm of each other, with the advantage to Robbins obviously.
Comparing Eastwood to Robbins, I don't think anyone claims that Robbins and Eastwood at peak were the same height but they could have been within like 2 cm of each other, with the advantage to Robbins obviously.
Lorne said on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
jervis said on 28/Jun/13
in arlington road robbins was 41 years old and in tunderbolt and light foot eastwood was also 41 years old but with the same actor jeff bridges robbins looked the far taller man much more than 1 inch with bridges .the only explanation is bridges has shrank about 2 inches by the age of 50.
in arlington road robbins was 41 years old and in tunderbolt and light foot eastwood was also 41 years old but with the same actor jeff bridges robbins looked the far taller man much more than 1 inch with bridges .the only explanation is bridges has shrank about 2 inches by the age of 50.
Mark said on 26/Jun/13
(Here's what I said in an old post)...there seems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
(Here's what Danimal said, in reply) The average man will have lost 1.2" by 70 and 2" by 80. Women more. We lose .4-.5" per DECADE after 40 and some claim after 30. There is medical proof of this. You're almost 50. I promise you that you are by no means the same height as you were at 25, let alone taller...haha.
(Here's my reply to Danimal, with an additional Eastwood comments just to keep it on topic); "Ha, ha"? What is that, like your expressing some kiddish glee that I'm insecure and you're catching me in some sort of lie? This is why I avoid message boards, generally, and only came on here to kill time today. 5'11 and 3/4ths in my 20's, 6'0.5 at 48, at night and throughout the year. If I were so insecure as to lie on a message board, I'd make my current height 6'2. For the rest who could care less about this silly banter, myself included, I still say that lifting heavy weights while standing, repeatedly and over time (like with Eastood doing heavy curls, standing presses, etc(Read up on his workout routines of years past..) can break down the cartilige in your spine much faster as you age, especially if you are skinny like Eastwood. That may explain some of his dramatic height loss.
(Here's what I said in an old post)...there seems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
(Here's what Danimal said, in reply) The average man will have lost 1.2" by 70 and 2" by 80. Women more. We lose .4-.5" per DECADE after 40 and some claim after 30. There is medical proof of this. You're almost 50. I promise you that you are by no means the same height as you were at 25, let alone taller...haha.
(Here's my reply to Danimal, with an additional Eastwood comments just to keep it on topic); "Ha, ha"? What is that, like your expressing some kiddish glee that I'm insecure and you're catching me in some sort of lie? This is why I avoid message boards, generally, and only came on here to kill time today. 5'11 and 3/4ths in my 20's, 6'0.5 at 48, at night and throughout the year. If I were so insecure as to lie on a message board, I'd make my current height 6'2. For the rest who could care less about this silly banter, myself included, I still say that lifting heavy weights while standing, repeatedly and over time (like with Eastood doing heavy curls, standing presses, etc(Read up on his workout routines of years past..) can break down the cartilige in your spine much faster as you age, especially if you are skinny like Eastwood. That may explain some of his dramatic height loss.
cole said on 25/Jun/13
He's 6ft flat now. that's for sure, if he was 6'4 or wahtever in his prime, it doesn't really matter now does it.
He's 6ft flat now. that's for sure, if he was 6'4 or wahtever in his prime, it doesn't really matter now does it.
jervis said on 24/Jun/13
watch arlington road with tim robbins and jeff bridges then tunder bolt and lightfoot whit bridges and eastwood.there is about 4 0r 5 inches between bridges and roobins in that film but in tblf with eastwood and bridges some times there seems to be only 1inch in eastwoods favour.if eastwood was 6ft4 and robbins 6ft5 they would have been very simler in there hight diffirance with bridges.but robbins looked clearly taller than eastwood with 6ft1inch bridges about 2 to 3inches.
watch arlington road with tim robbins and jeff bridges then tunder bolt and lightfoot whit bridges and eastwood.there is about 4 0r 5 inches between bridges and roobins in that film but in tblf with eastwood and bridges some times there seems to be only 1inch in eastwoods favour.if eastwood was 6ft4 and robbins 6ft5 they would have been very simler in there hight diffirance with bridges.but robbins looked clearly taller than eastwood with 6ft1inch bridges about 2 to 3inches.
alan brisco said on 24/Jun/13
Parker says on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
-------------
ahhh listen, gene hackman claimed an unbelievable 6'2"!!!!!ahahah
he struggled with 6ft !!!!!!!!!!
many people do not realize how a legit 6'3" really is. This is the problem. So i see everywhere, listed heights at 6'2"-6'3"-6'4", very easily...ahahaha
Parker says on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
-------------
ahhh listen, gene hackman claimed an unbelievable 6'2"!!!!!ahahah
he struggled with 6ft !!!!!!!!!!
many people do not realize how a legit 6'3" really is. This is the problem. So i see everywhere, listed heights at 6'2"-6'3"-6'4", very easily...ahahaha
alan brisco said on 24/Jun/13
jtm says on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.---------------
sly at 5'10"? ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. who said that? maybe some fanboys, like for schwarzenegger or ferrigno. i always said sly was 5'7"-5'8" (barefeet).
jtm says on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.---------------
sly at 5'10"? ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. who said that? maybe some fanboys, like for schwarzenegger or ferrigno. i always said sly was 5'7"-5'8" (barefeet).
Silent d said on 22/Jun/13
Chris the kid in gran torino looked about 160cm next to clint eastwood. He used to be 6 foot 4 but I think now 6 foot is about right. He has lost a lot of height. Dowagers hump and other health problems.
Chris the kid in gran torino looked about 160cm next to clint eastwood. He used to be 6 foot 4 but I think now 6 foot is about right. He has lost a lot of height. Dowagers hump and other health problems.
Yaspaa said on 22/Jun/13
Not everyone is an average man, Danimal.
Not everyone is an average man, Danimal.
Kyuss said on 22/Jun/13
Imo 6-3" is more closer.
Imo 6-3" is more closer.
Parker said on 22/Jun/13
I think Clint would measure 6'-6'1 at 83 years old
This pic with DeCaprio was taken ~ 18 months ago. Clint looks to have approx an inch on him IMO....maybe a smidge less
Click Here
I think Clint would measure 6'-6'1 at 83 years old
This pic with DeCaprio was taken ~ 18 months ago. Clint looks to have approx an inch on him IMO....maybe a smidge less
Click Here
jtm said on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jun/13
I think it might be is slumped posture though. In most photos with Morgan Freeman he looks near 2 inches shorter but in a few where his posture looks right they look closer.I would agree in a lot of photos he can even look like he struggling with 6' today.
I think it might be is slumped posture though. In most photos with Morgan Freeman he looks near 2 inches shorter but in a few where his posture looks right they look closer.I would agree in a lot of photos he can even look like he struggling with 6' today.
Henrik said on 21/Jun/13
He suffers of scoliosis, so I don't see why he could not have suffered a big height loss.
He suffers of scoliosis, so I don't see why he could not have suffered a big height loss.
Parker said on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
Click Here
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
Click Here
Terry said on 20/Jun/13
Is that 6'4 wearing cowboy boots? His peak height is 6'2, not sure if he has lost height now though.
Is that 6'4 wearing cowboy boots? His peak height is 6'2, not sure if he has lost height now though.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jun/13
Arch Stanton says on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
[Editor Rob: affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.]
He can still look 6'1" range at times though don't you think Rob? Then others he can barely look 6'. I still think he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day with his best posture.
Editor Rob
Arch Stanton says on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
[Editor Rob: affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.]
He can still look 6'1" range at times though don't you think Rob? Then others he can barely look 6'. I still think he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day with his best posture.
Editor Rob in general I think he looks 6ft range more often than above it
alan brisco said on 19/Jun/13
5/11 on my knees says on 15/Jun/13
6'4" barefoot no at all...he's the same heigth as dicaprio now..be it he shrunk an inch or two..6'2 barefoot peak...now 6'-------------clintfan, sorry, but as you can see, many people here agree with me. Clint (barefeet), could NOT be over 6'3".
5/11 on my knees says on 15/Jun/13
6'4" barefoot no at all...he's the same heigth as dicaprio now..be it he shrunk an inch or two..6'2 barefoot peak...now 6'-------------clintfan, sorry, but as you can see, many people here agree with me. Clint (barefeet), could NOT be over 6'3".
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/13
I suppose Affleck is leaning and the angle is funny, Eastwood has a longer head which confuses things, Affleck's chin level is a few inches higher.
I suppose Affleck is leaning and the angle is funny, Eastwood has a longer head which confuses things, Affleck's chin level is a few inches higher.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
Editor Rob
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
Editor Rob affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Jun/13
At 2 hrs 40 Tuco is digging me up!!
At 2 hrs 40 Tuco is digging me up!!
Arch Stanton said on 11/Jun/13
Click Here
See 2 hrs 11:11. That's the tallest I ever saw Clint look in any of his films, he looks 6 ft 6 there but is on slightly higher ground.
Click Here
See 2 hrs 11:11. That's the tallest I ever saw Clint look in any of his films, he looks 6 ft 6 there but is on slightly higher ground.
alan brisco said on 8/Jun/13
Clint fan says on 7/Jun/13
Alan, I think that you may be underestimating the effect of posture on how tall someone may appear. Why are you not willing to consider that as a possibility?-----because they are only justifications!!! it is not correct to face any topic claiming justifications!---Henrik says on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.---yes totally agree with you, i do not want prove anything, i am just saying that 6'4" (barefeet) is a overestimated height for clint. (just a little bit). This is only my opinion.
Clint fan says on 7/Jun/13
Alan, I think that you may be underestimating the effect of posture on how tall someone may appear. Why are you not willing to consider that as a possibility?-----because they are only justifications!!! it is not correct to face any topic claiming justifications!---Henrik says on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.---yes totally agree with you, i do not want prove anything, i am just saying that 6'4" (barefeet) is a overestimated height for clint. (just a little bit). This is only my opinion.
Henrik said on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.
I think Eastwood proportionally looked just like Christopher Reeve, who the producers of Superman described 6'4" or 6'5". Very ectomorphic with the legs of a 6'6"+ man.
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.
I think Eastwood proportionally looked just like Christopher Reeve, who the producers of Superman described 6'4" or 6'5". Very ectomorphic with the legs of a 6'6"+ man.
alan brisco said on 6/Jun/13
Clint fan says on 3/Jun/13So, if Ed Harris is 5'9, and Clint was 5 inches taller than him, that puts him at 6'2, at 66 years old, when he would likely have lost significant height.----
NO!!! at 66 he did not lose significant height. It has been proven, a man in good health, can not lose 3-4-5 inches from 20 to 70. This is a nonsense without a serious hump. For ex. if you are 5'11" at 20-40, you can not be 5'7"-5'8" at 60-70!!!!! Is it clear? So at 66 clint lost max max 1 inch. I said ed harris is 5'9" because many people listed him at 5'9", but at the same time many other people listed him at a more realistic 5'8". And i said clint looked 4-5 inches taller. You do not have to say just 5 inches. So for me he looked in the 6'1" range in "absolute power" at 66. I underline the fact that height is measured barefeet, because it is the starting point. For everybody of course. In this case, most say clint peak was 6'4". Being 6'4" barefeet, it means he was 6'5"- 6'6" with shoes or cowboy boots on. This is simply not true. So he could be 6'4" but with shoes on, it means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefeet. I keep my idea
Clint fan says on 3/Jun/13So, if Ed Harris is 5'9, and Clint was 5 inches taller than him, that puts him at 6'2, at 66 years old, when he would likely have lost significant height.----
NO!!! at 66 he did not lose significant height. It has been proven, a man in good health, can not lose 3-4-5 inches from 20 to 70. This is a nonsense without a serious hump. For ex. if you are 5'11" at 20-40, you can not be 5'7"-5'8" at 60-70!!!!! Is it clear? So at 66 clint lost max max 1 inch. I said ed harris is 5'9" because many people listed him at 5'9", but at the same time many other people listed him at a more realistic 5'8". And i said clint looked 4-5 inches taller. You do not have to say just 5 inches. So for me he looked in the 6'1" range in "absolute power" at 66. I underline the fact that height is measured barefeet, because it is the starting point. For everybody of course. In this case, most say clint peak was 6'4". Being 6'4" barefeet, it means he was 6'5"- 6'6" with shoes or cowboy boots on. This is simply not true. So he could be 6'4" but with shoes on, it means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefeet. I keep my idea
alan brisco said on 1/Jun/13
arch struns, you talk only with justifications, you are able only to scream "manipulated videos, bad posture, bad camera angle", bla bla bla. Ed harris is 5'9", many say he is more like 5'8". in that movie THERE ARE NOT 7-8 INCHES of difference between ed and clint. Clint was 4-5 inches taller than ed. So in the 6'1" range. But he was 65. THIS IS NOT A MANIPULATED VIDEO. Clint never looked 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Eli wallach was for sure in the 5'7" range. You can not see 9-10 inches difference between the two. THIS IS NOT BAD POSTURE. HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFEET, but you avoid this concept. Clint could be 6'4" in his prime, BUT WITH SHOES ON. If you do not accept it, never mind.
arch struns, you talk only with justifications, you are able only to scream "manipulated videos, bad posture, bad camera angle", bla bla bla. Ed harris is 5'9", many say he is more like 5'8". in that movie THERE ARE NOT 7-8 INCHES of difference between ed and clint. Clint was 4-5 inches taller than ed. So in the 6'1" range. But he was 65. THIS IS NOT A MANIPULATED VIDEO. Clint never looked 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Eli wallach was for sure in the 5'7" range. You can not see 9-10 inches difference between the two. THIS IS NOT BAD POSTURE. HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFEET, but you avoid this concept. Clint could be 6'4" in his prime, BUT WITH SHOES ON. If you do not accept it, never mind.
Arch Stanton said on 31/May/13
Brisco and Johnno will claim Rock Hudson was 6'3.5" as listed and say Eastwood was 6'2.5", about an inch shorter.
Brisco and Johnno will claim Rock Hudson was 6'3.5" as listed and say Eastwood was 6'2.5", about an inch shorter.
Parker said on 29/May/13
@ Clint Fan - Ignore the doubters. He claimed 6'4, why would he do that if he was 6'2-6'3. Why would you care at that height?
Go to 1.26 on this clip next to 6'5 Hudson.
Click Here
Clint was 6'4 prime, no doubt in my opinion.
@ Clint Fan - Ignore the doubters. He claimed 6'4, why would he do that if he was 6'2-6'3. Why would you care at that height?
Go to 1.26 on this clip next to 6'5 Hudson.
Click Here
Clint was 6'4 prime, no doubt in my opinion.
Arch Stanton said on 29/May/13
Clint fan, beware of Brisco and Johnno, they always come up with the stark minimum of all human possibility of heights and at times overstep the mark and look like they're trolling but I think they actually believe what they're saying. To me is seems they'll manipulate any photograph or video and claim just the opposite.
Clint fan, beware of Brisco and Johnno, they always come up with the stark minimum of all human possibility of heights and at times overstep the mark and look like they're trolling but I think they actually believe what they're saying. To me is seems they'll manipulate any photograph or video and claim just the opposite.
Arch Stanton said on 29/May/13
Mark says on 20/May/13
I don't, I generally think men lose height by 60 onwards. But a small percentage lose height by their 50s and Eastwood was one of them, you can see he looked noticeably shorter by his late 50s than as a young man.
Mark says on 20/May/13
I don't, I generally think men lose height by 60 onwards. But a small percentage lose height by their 50s and Eastwood was one of them, you can see he looked noticeably shorter by his late 50s than as a young man.
alan brisco said on 29/May/13
i just saw "absolute power" with clint and ed harris. Well Harris is not a tall man for sure, listed anywhere at 5'9". It should be realistic. Watch the movie. Clint was approx. 4 inches(10cm) taller than him, max 5 inches. 7-8 inches of difference between the two is only a fake, absolutely. Watch the movie. Clint at the time was 65, but still in good shape, any hump or serious back problem. So he looked in the 6'1" range in that movie, at 65. You can understand he could not be 6'4" barefeet at 20-30. My resume: clint peak barefeet 6'2.5"-6'3". With normal shoes on: 6'3.5"-6'4". With cowboy boots on: 6'4.5"-6'5".
i just saw "absolute power" with clint and ed harris. Well Harris is not a tall man for sure, listed anywhere at 5'9". It should be realistic. Watch the movie. Clint was approx. 4 inches(10cm) taller than him, max 5 inches. 7-8 inches of difference between the two is only a fake, absolutely. Watch the movie. Clint at the time was 65, but still in good shape, any hump or serious back problem. So he looked in the 6'1" range in that movie, at 65. You can understand he could not be 6'4" barefeet at 20-30. My resume: clint peak barefeet 6'2.5"-6'3". With normal shoes on: 6'3.5"-6'4". With cowboy boots on: 6'4.5"-6'5".
alan brisco said on 29/May/13
Clintfan, do you know this brolin? face to face? many people stated him at 6'3".
My simple question is: if Clint was 6'4" barefeet, he would have been tall approx. 6'5" with "normal shoes" on, and 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Did he look 6'5"-6'6" with normal shoes or cowboy boots on? my simple answer is: NO!
Clintfan, do you know this brolin? face to face? many people stated him at 6'3".
My simple question is: if Clint was 6'4" barefeet, he would have been tall approx. 6'5" with "normal shoes" on, and 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Did he look 6'5"-6'6" with normal shoes or cowboy boots on? my simple answer is: NO!
alan brisco said on 22/May/13
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13: I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4".-----
YES 6'4", BUT WITH SHOES ON!!! HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFOOT. It means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefoot.
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13: I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4".-----
YES 6'4", BUT WITH SHOES ON!!! HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFOOT. It means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefoot.
alan brisco said on 22/May/13
in fact in the pic with brolin he does not look over 6'3". Absolutely. He does not look taller than brolin. Look also the shoulders level. And he had shoes on of course. I am a little bit tired of reply, but i have to:Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13 Alan, you pick select photographs.
And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.-----------Well minimum cowboy boots give you 2 inches, minimum, he never looked 6'6" or 6'6.5" close to lee vc and eli wallach.
A man at 6'4" barefoot look clearly 6'6" with cowboy boots on. I am realizing here in this great website that people do not understand height is measured barefoot. So with shoes on (of course it depends on shoes) you add something.
I keep my idea, you keep your idea. For me clint eastwood was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot. So with normal shoes on he looked 6'3.5"-6'4", with cowboy boots on he looked 6'6". This is realistic. All the pics here have the same value. Stop with justifications. Posture or camera angle.
in fact in the pic with brolin he does not look over 6'3". Absolutely. He does not look taller than brolin. Look also the shoulders level. And he had shoes on of course. I am a little bit tired of reply, but i have to:Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13 Alan, you pick select photographs.
And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.-----------Well minimum cowboy boots give you 2 inches, minimum, he never looked 6'6" or 6'6.5" close to lee vc and eli wallach.
A man at 6'4" barefoot look clearly 6'6" with cowboy boots on. I am realizing here in this great website that people do not understand height is measured barefoot. So with shoes on (of course it depends on shoes) you add something.
I keep my idea, you keep your idea. For me clint eastwood was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot. So with normal shoes on he looked 6'3.5"-6'4", with cowboy boots on he looked 6'6". This is realistic. All the pics here have the same value. Stop with justifications. Posture or camera angle.
Mark said on 20/May/13
...there eems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
...there eems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
wingnut said on 18/May/13
clint also had a bit part in a rock hudson film; there's a scene
where they are standing next to each other.
They are practically the same height.
Sorry i can't post link but there are a couple of new documentaries on
youtube; just type clint eastwood and the scene with hudson is on one
of them.
clint also had a bit part in a rock hudson film; there's a scene
where they are standing next to each other.
They are practically the same height.
Sorry i can't post link but there are a couple of new documentaries on
youtube; just type clint eastwood and the scene with hudson is on one
of them.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Rickles was listed at 5 ft 6, but check out his big heels at 1:46. Looks like he's wearing big lifts with stack heels on the outside too. And Clint still looked near 10 inches taller than him even in 1986 when he seemed to have begun losing a bit of height.
Rickles was listed at 5 ft 6, but check out his big heels at 1:46. Looks like he's wearing big lifts with stack heels on the outside too. And Clint still looked near 10 inches taller than him even in 1986 when he seemed to have begun losing a bit of height.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Alan, you pick select photographs. I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4". As Orne says, he wasn't under 192 peak. He has consistently looked easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" listed guys, had between 2 and 3 inches on Jeff Bridges etc, had about 2 inches on guys like Tim Matheson, was slightly taller than Michael Moriarty even at a time he had seemed to have begun to lose a bit of height. I used to think Clint was about 6'2" and was shocked when I first found out he was 6 ft 4, but I've seen enough of his films and how he looked in his prime to think it is quite clear he was as tall as this. I, Rob, James and others here have said that he could have been 6'3.5", but none of us believe he was as low as 6'3" or less. As for him not looking 6'6" in the westerns I agree, but there is a waxwork of him in a Californian museum which was taken of him during the Dollars period and it measures 6'5" and a half in boots. And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.
Alan, you pick select photographs. I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4". As Orne says, he wasn't under 192 peak. He has consistently looked easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" listed guys, had between 2 and 3 inches on Jeff Bridges etc, had about 2 inches on guys like Tim Matheson, was slightly taller than Michael Moriarty even at a time he had seemed to have begun to lose a bit of height. I used to think Clint was about 6'2" and was shocked when I first found out he was 6 ft 4, but I've seen enough of his films and how he looked in his prime to think it is quite clear he was as tall as this. I, Rob, James and others here have said that he could have been 6'3.5", but none of us believe he was as low as 6'3" or less. As for him not looking 6'6" in the westerns I agree, but there is a waxwork of him in a Californian museum which was taken of him during the Dollars period and it measures 6'5" and a half in boots. And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
jervis says on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Clint had already shrunk to 6'2.5-6'3" by 1995, see the Arnie pics. Seagal often wears big boots and a case could be made for 6'4.5" for him anyway. Seagal claims 6'5". That Seagal had two inches on him by then is expected.
jervis says on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Clint had already shrunk to 6'2.5-6'3" by 1995, see the Arnie pics. Seagal often wears big boots and a case could be made for 6'4.5" for him anyway. Seagal claims 6'5". That Seagal had two inches on him by then is expected.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Great find Jack. Look at him sitting down at 1:13, he just looks like a 6'4" man sitting down (and standing up next to Rickles too). Clint is an honest straight laced guy, I can't see a man who was clearly very tall peak fudging his height can you?
Great find Jack. Look at him sitting down at 1:13, he just looks like a 6'4" man sitting down (and standing up next to Rickles too). Clint is an honest straight laced guy, I can't see a man who was clearly very tall peak fudging his height can you?
Jack said on 14/May/13
Did any of you actually know Clint Eastwood? He has said himself he was 6'4" I would tend to go along with that. John Wayne and Clint were both very similar in height 6'4". Are you going to tell us next John Wayne was only 6' foot?
Did any of you actually know Clint Eastwood? He has said himself he was 6'4" I would tend to go along with that. John Wayne and Clint were both very similar in height 6'4". Are you going to tell us next John Wayne was only 6' foot?
alan brisco said on 13/May/13
please arch, everytime there is a pic where clint does not tower the other person, you speak about bad posture or bad camera angle. Please stop! when i say he was about 6'2.5"-6'3", yes it means 6'3" range. This is realistic. 6'4" is overestimated for clint, this is my opinion. i am totally agree with yaspaa. If he was 6'4", with cowboy boots on, he would have been tall in the 6'6" range. Please! absolutely a fake!!!
please arch, everytime there is a pic where clint does not tower the other person, you speak about bad posture or bad camera angle. Please stop! when i say he was about 6'2.5"-6'3", yes it means 6'3" range. This is realistic. 6'4" is overestimated for clint, this is my opinion. i am totally agree with yaspaa. If he was 6'4", with cowboy boots on, he would have been tall in the 6'6" range. Please! absolutely a fake!!!
wingnut said on 10/May/13
hey,guys.Go to youtube and type in Don Rickles roasts Clint Eastwood.
I know Rickles is short but Clint towers him.
Even back then,in the mid-80's,in my opinion,he was well over 6'2".
hey,guys.Go to youtube and type in Don Rickles roasts Clint Eastwood.
I know Rickles is short but Clint towers him.
Even back then,in the mid-80's,in my opinion,he was well over 6'2".
jervis said on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Lorne$ said on 9/May/13
believ me, being a doctor does not make you smart; Remember, AVERAGE loss at 70 is around 2 inches; so by 80 it would be closer to 3 inches. How much closer? Not sure. Point is, if average, as in, you know, NORMAL loss is 2 inches at age 70, then losing 3.5 inches by age 80 honestly idn't that extreme at all. Especially considering his hump these days! But seriously, if you haven't researched height loss, don't talk about it please, much less what some mysterious "doctor" or group of doctors said, when I have a strange feeling they have never studied height at all. Seriously, ask them they're morning height ;). And again, for the record, Eastwood wasn't under 192cm at peak...$&@?!
believ me, being a doctor does not make you smart; Remember, AVERAGE loss at 70 is around 2 inches; so by 80 it would be closer to 3 inches. How much closer? Not sure. Point is, if average, as in, you know, NORMAL loss is 2 inches at age 70, then losing 3.5 inches by age 80 honestly idn't that extreme at all. Especially considering his hump these days! But seriously, if you haven't researched height loss, don't talk about it please, much less what some mysterious "doctor" or group of doctors said, when I have a strange feeling they have never studied height at all. Seriously, ask them they're morning height ;). And again, for the record, Eastwood wasn't under 192cm at peak...$&@?!
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
You could argue 6'3" range peak, but seriously anything under 190 peak is absolute b******s.
You could argue 6'3" range peak, but seriously anything under 190 peak is absolute b******s.
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
Alan, Eastwood was also barely an inch shorter than Rock Hudson in 1955.
Alan, Eastwood was also barely an inch shorter than Rock Hudson in 1955.
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
Alan, Eastwood looks an easy 6'3" next to Holden but the angle really isn't a good photo, the height difference would look more pronounced if taken from in front of them for sure. Eastwood had 1-1.5 on Charlton Heston at an award ceremony in 1972 or so. Heston was 6'1" max peak huh?
Alan, Eastwood looks an easy 6'3" next to Holden but the angle really isn't a good photo, the height difference would look more pronounced if taken from in front of them for sure. Eastwood had 1-1.5 on Charlton Heston at an award ceremony in 1972 or so. Heston was 6'1" max peak huh?
Gus said on 5/May/13
Was at least 191cm peak, had 2 inches on legit 6'1 Jeff Bridges right the way through thunderbolt and lightfoot who some even say is 6'2.
Was at least 191cm peak, had 2 inches on legit 6'1 Jeff Bridges right the way through thunderbolt and lightfoot who some even say is 6'2.
alan brisco said on 5/May/13
Danimal, for you all those celebs are 6'2"-6'3"-6'4"-6'5". You can continue to live in your fake world, if you like it. No problem.
It is totally a nonsense for a man being tall 6'4" at 20-40, then shrinking at 6ft at 70-80. I know what doctors say. You can lose a couple of inches, but 4 inches are a nonsense!
Hope it works, Clint with william holden:
Click Here
So, william holden was for sure in the 5'10" range, shorter than the legit 5'11" glenn ford. You can clearly see a young clint eastwood about 4 inches taller than holden. YOU CAN NOT SEE 6-7 INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO!!! IS IT CLEAR???
Clint Eastwood peak was 6'2.5"-6'3"(189-190cm) NOTHING MORE.
Danimal, for you all those celebs are 6'2"-6'3"-6'4"-6'5". You can continue to live in your fake world, if you like it. No problem.
It is totally a nonsense for a man being tall 6'4" at 20-40, then shrinking at 6ft at 70-80. I know what doctors say. You can lose a couple of inches, but 4 inches are a nonsense!
Hope it works, Clint with william holden:
Click Here
So, william holden was for sure in the 5'10" range, shorter than the legit 5'11" glenn ford. You can clearly see a young clint eastwood about 4 inches taller than holden. YOU CAN NOT SEE 6-7 INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO!!! IS IT CLEAR???
Clint Eastwood peak was 6'2.5"-6'3"(189-190cm) NOTHING MORE.
Arch Stanton said on 5/May/13
LOL OK 6'2" for Eastwood and 6'0" for Connery if it makes you feel better folks!!
LOL OK 6'2" for Eastwood and 6'0" for Connery if it makes you feel better folks!!
thin man said on 4/May/13
Danimal I totally agree with you man. Guy was never 6'4" To all those others who say he lost 7.5cm -10cm say what? 5-6cm perhaps but 10cm for an 80 year old Healthy 80 year old I may add. no way. There is a picture of hin in his 50's next to steven seagal and Clint look all of 6'1.5" tall. Seagal towered over him then.
Danimal I totally agree with you man. Guy was never 6'4" To all those others who say he lost 7.5cm -10cm say what? 5-6cm perhaps but 10cm for an 80 year old Healthy 80 year old I may add. no way. There is a picture of hin in his 50's next to steven seagal and Clint look all of 6'1.5" tall. Seagal towered over him then.
Yaspaa said on 1/May/13
Still doesn't mean he was 6'4. Pushing 6'6 in his cowboy boots, no way. Under 6'3 peak. Wasn't as tall as Larry Hankin in Escape.
Still doesn't mean he was 6'4. Pushing 6'6 in his cowboy boots, no way. Under 6'3 peak. Wasn't as tall as Larry Hankin in Escape.
alan brisco said on 1/May/13
please arch, do not joke with "the posture story"...any bad posture can cancel 3 inches! (6'1"-6'4")
here the posture is correct for both:
Click Here
So i keep my idea: lee vc a legit 6'1", clint at 6'2.5"-6'3".
6'4" is overestimated for clint.
Sutherland a shadow shorter than clint.
And about connery, i saw "rising sun" with wesley snipes. Well, snipes is a legit 5'9"....YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT CONNERY WAS TALLER THAN SNIPES OF ABOUT 2-3 INCHES. Nothing more. So in the 6ft range!. Of course he was "old", lost something in height....Peak connery max 6'1". Nothing more. 6'1.5"-6'2" overestimated.
please arch, do not joke with "the posture story"...any bad posture can cancel 3 inches! (6'1"-6'4")
here the posture is correct for both:
Click Here
So i keep my idea: lee vc a legit 6'1", clint at 6'2.5"-6'3".
6'4" is overestimated for clint.
Sutherland a shadow shorter than clint.
And about connery, i saw "rising sun" with wesley snipes. Well, snipes is a legit 5'9"....YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT CONNERY WAS TALLER THAN SNIPES OF ABOUT 2-3 INCHES. Nothing more. So in the 6ft range!. Of course he was "old", lost something in height....Peak connery max 6'1". Nothing more. 6'1.5"-6'2" overestimated.
Dmeyer said on 30/Apr/13
With DiCaprio he looks taller than à Guy like 183/184 watanabe Clint could be 185cm or Léo Israël 181cm ,
With DiCaprio he looks taller than à Guy like 183/184 watanabe Clint could be 185cm or Léo Israël 181cm ,
Arch Stanton said on 29/Apr/13
Brisco, look at Eastwood's posture in that photograph LOL. Really bad angle and photo and posture to judge height. I've seen the films zillions of times and Eastwood looked more than an inch taller than Van Cleef. As for comparing somebody's height with Stallone, you clearly know little about height and Stallone's footwear. Likeihood is that he is pulling off a look taller than 5'8"-5'9" in his films and nearer 5'10"-5'11". If you are claiming Sutherland was 6'2 tops then you're also claiming Sean Connery was 6 ft max when it is a fact that he was measured at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and what he has claimed. Add two inches to Connery's measured height and you have Sutherland's height at peak, 6'3.5". And also remember Connery was supposedly measured once at 6'2.4, so claiming both Sutherland and Eastwood were 6'2" range is laughable.
Brisco, look at Eastwood's posture in that photograph LOL. Really bad angle and photo and posture to judge height. I've seen the films zillions of times and Eastwood looked more than an inch taller than Van Cleef. As for comparing somebody's height with Stallone, you clearly know little about height and Stallone's footwear. Likeihood is that he is pulling off a look taller than 5'8"-5'9" in his films and nearer 5'10"-5'11". If you are claiming Sutherland was 6'2 tops then you're also claiming Sean Connery was 6 ft max when it is a fact that he was measured at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and what he has claimed. Add two inches to Connery's measured height and you have Sutherland's height at peak, 6'3.5". And also remember Connery was supposedly measured once at 6'2.4, so claiming both Sutherland and Eastwood were 6'2" range is laughable.
Parker said on 29/Apr/13
I'd always come back to the interview he gave some years ago where he said he was 6'4 at 15. 6'3/6'4 its tall! Why would he say it if he wasn't 6'4?
Look at the shooting scene in Magnum Force with Robert Urich and Tim Matheson both listed 6'2 on here. Clint looks a clear 2 inches taller.
I'd always come back to the interview he gave some years ago where he said he was 6'4 at 15. 6'3/6'4 its tall! Why would he say it if he wasn't 6'4?
Look at the shooting scene in Magnum Force with Robert Urich and Tim Matheson both listed 6'2 on here. Clint looks a clear 2 inches taller.
alan brisco said on 28/Apr/13
i do not know if it is works:
Click Here
It is clear clint had just an inch over leevc. Just a little bit taller.
lee vc was in the 6'1" range. Nothing more. for sure. without cowboy boots
clint eastwood, i keep him at 6'2.5" (189cm). Max max max at 6'3".
Connery at 6'2" was overestimated. I read on a movie magazine, listed at 6ft(183cm) Realistic.
Sutherland for sure was in the 6'2" range. I repeat, just watch him in the movie with stallone. Stallone at 5'8"-5'9", you can not see 8-9 inches between the two. Sutherland taller than stallone of 5-6 inches is more realistic.
i do not know if it is works:
Click Here
It is clear clint had just an inch over leevc. Just a little bit taller.
lee vc was in the 6'1" range. Nothing more. for sure. without cowboy boots
clint eastwood, i keep him at 6'2.5" (189cm). Max max max at 6'3".
Connery at 6'2" was overestimated. I read on a movie magazine, listed at 6ft(183cm) Realistic.
Sutherland for sure was in the 6'2" range. I repeat, just watch him in the movie with stallone. Stallone at 5'8"-5'9", you can not see 8-9 inches between the two. Sutherland taller than stallone of 5-6 inches is more realistic.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/13
A case could be made for 6'3" range for both Eastwood and John Wayne, I could believe 192cm peak for both but I think Eastwood clearly looked too lanky to have been anything under 6'3". To me he looked a good 2 inches taller on screen than guys like Connery and Van Cleef who were about the same height, 6'1.5"-6'2". And Eastwood did have a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars more, 1 inch would have been barely noticeable; the difference was clear.
A case could be made for 6'3" range for both Eastwood and John Wayne, I could believe 192cm peak for both but I think Eastwood clearly looked too lanky to have been anything under 6'3". To me he looked a good 2 inches taller on screen than guys like Connery and Van Cleef who were about the same height, 6'1.5"-6'2". And Eastwood did have a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars more, 1 inch would have been barely noticeable; the difference was clear.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Apr/13
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in the Great Train Robbery, 6 ft for Sean Connery? Because Connery consistently looked around 6'2" himself...
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in the Great Train Robbery, 6 ft for Sean Connery? Because Connery consistently looked around 6'2" himself...
wiltonstilts said on 23/Apr/13
You people are insane. He was 6'04 at his peak ... He's a very tall man even now I don't believe he's a man of 6 foot even. 6'02 now seems like a better estimate.
You people are insane. He was 6'04 at his peak ... He's a very tall man even now I don't believe he's a man of 6 foot even. 6'02 now seems like a better estimate.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Apr/13
In the 50s Daniele when he was in his 20s, Eastwood was in a movie with Rock Hudson and barely looked shorter.
In the 50s Daniele when he was in his 20s, Eastwood was in a movie with Rock Hudson and barely looked shorter.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Apr/13
I agree, it seems incredibly hard to believe he was anywhere near Tim Robbins in height when you seem him next to him, looks 4-5 inches shorter today. But look at his legs, he has longer legs than Tim Robbins. And if you look at him peak, yes he had lanky legs but he had a sizeable length torso too. He's lost a lot of height, it happens to some people.
I agree, it seems incredibly hard to believe he was anywhere near Tim Robbins in height when you seem him next to him, looks 4-5 inches shorter today. But look at his legs, he has longer legs than Tim Robbins. And if you look at him peak, yes he had lanky legs but he had a sizeable length torso too. He's lost a lot of height, it happens to some people.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/13
Also if Eastwood was max 6'2.5" why was he a shade taller than Donal Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, when Donald Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery? That would put Sutherland at 6'2" and Connery at 6' tops peak.
Also if Eastwood was max 6'2.5" why was he a shade taller than Donal Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, when Donald Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery? That would put Sutherland at 6'2" and Connery at 6' tops peak.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/13
Alan, Eastwood had a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef. Van Cleef wasn't under 6'1.5" peak.
Alan, Eastwood had a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef. Van Cleef wasn't under 6'1.5" peak.
alan brisco said on 14/Apr/13
Clint at 6'4" was a fake listed for years. He was clearly shorter. A tall man for sure, but not so tall. He was very similar to lee van cleef, who was in the 6'1" range. How a man can lose 4 inches? is it a joke? when you get old, of course you lose something but 4-5 inches is a joke for a healthy man. You can lose 5-10 inches if you have the hump, but clint is normal. So for me he was 6'1.5"-6'3" (187-190 cm). I would say max 6'2.5" (189 cm).
No way he was taller than 6'3". Fake.
Clint at 6'4" was a fake listed for years. He was clearly shorter. A tall man for sure, but not so tall. He was very similar to lee van cleef, who was in the 6'1" range. How a man can lose 4 inches? is it a joke? when you get old, of course you lose something but 4-5 inches is a joke for a healthy man. You can lose 5-10 inches if you have the hump, but clint is normal. So for me he was 6'1.5"-6'3" (187-190 cm). I would say max 6'2.5" (189 cm).
No way he was taller than 6'3". Fake.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
@Daniele
What you mean is that you saw him in 2003, thought he looked a bit shorter than you at 6'1.5" but noticed his slouching and dowagers hump back problem so estimated that at his peak he'd have been a strong 6'3" guy but 6'4" seemed a bit high to imagine he ever was right? Because I agree in 2003 he'd have been 6'1.5-6'2" range and could probably look 6'1" even by then because of posture.
@Daniele
What you mean is that you saw him in 2003, thought he looked a bit shorter than you at 6'1.5" but noticed his slouching and dowagers hump back problem so estimated that at his peak he'd have been a strong 6'3" guy but 6'4" seemed a bit high to imagine he ever was right? Because I agree in 2003 he'd have been 6'1.5-6'2" range and could probably look 6'1" even by then because of posture.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
Daniele, you're a guy right? Can't think of many girls called Daniele who'd be taller than a strong 6'3" !
Daniele, you're a guy right? Can't think of many girls called Daniele who'd be taller than a strong 6'3" !
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.